By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Due to a credible Iranian assassination threat involving operatives and surface-to-air missiles, President Trump’s campaign employed elaborate security measures during the 2024 election cycle. These precautions included using a decoy plane belonging to Steve Witkoff, while his staff traveled on his usual aircraft, “Trump Force One.” A decoy motorcade was also implemented to further obfuscate the President’s movements. These actions highlight the extreme security concerns surrounding Trump’s campaign.
Read the original article here
During the 2016 presidential campaign, credible intelligence suggested Iranian operatives within the United States had access to surface-to-air missiles. This alarming information prompted significant concern within President Trump’s campaign team, particularly regarding his safety while traveling.
The concern stemmed from the perceived vulnerability of Trump’s highly visible and easily identifiable branded plane. It was determined that this easily recognizable aircraft presented an unacceptable risk given the potential threat of missile attack.
To mitigate this risk, the decision was made to employ a decoy plane. While Trump’s official plane, often referred to as “Trump Force One,” continued its regular schedule, carrying a portion of the campaign staff, the president himself was secretly transported on a different, less conspicuous aircraft.
This strategic move involved utilizing a private jet, seemingly unrelated to the campaign, thus reducing the likelihood of it being targeted. The selection of this specific aircraft, notably previously owned by Jeffrey Epstein, adds another layer of intrigue to the situation, and raises questions regarding security protocols.
This security measure, while successful in ensuring the president’s safety, caused considerable anxiety among some staff members who were inadvertently placed in a higher risk situation. Those traveling on the decoy plane were understandably apprehensive about becoming potential “collateral damage” in the event of an attack. The staff were essentially used as bait to ensure the president’s safety.
The decision to use staff as a decoy sparked outrage and debate. While some viewed it as a necessary evil to protect the president, others criticized the perceived disregard for the safety and well-being of campaign staff. This lack of concern for his employees’ safety underscored a pattern of behavior that many found disquieting.
This event revealed a deep-seated paranoia within the Trump campaign’s leadership. The incident highlighted a potential blind spot in US intelligence, raising questions about the nation’s ability to detect and neutralize such threats within its borders. It also shone a light on the president’s security concerns, highlighting the potential risks faced by high-profile individuals in the political arena.
The incident also serves as a fascinating illustration of the security measures employed in high-stakes political campaigns. The deployment of decoy vehicles and the use of deception to protect the president reveal the lengths to which security forces will go to ensure the safety of their principal.
The use of a decoy jet, while unconventional, underscores the gravity of the intelligence that prompted it. It raises the question of how frequently such measures are employed, and whether this instance was an exceptional precaution or a standard operating procedure in times of perceived elevated threat. This event highlights the complex and often unseen challenges of protecting high-profile individuals in an era of increasingly sophisticated threats.
This incident further fuelled the already existing conversations surrounding President Trump’s leadership style, raising further questions about his decision-making processes and priorities. The fact that this information has only recently come to light also suggests there are many untold stories surrounding presidential security procedures that still await uncovering.
Beyond the immediate security implications, this story raises larger questions about the state of national security and the perceived vulnerability of high-profile individuals, especially during politically charged times. The incident underscores the necessity for ongoing vigilance and robust security protocols to protect national leaders and key figures. The potential for Iranian operatives to possess surface-to-air missiles on American soil is a chilling prospect, illustrating the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of modern threats.