By Matt Underwood The recent news suggesting that Iran has shot down two U.S. fighter jets, an F-15E Strike Eagle and an A-10 Warthog, has prompted commentary from former national security adviser John Bolton, who believes President Trump is likely in “panic mode.” This assessment stems from Bolton’s observation of the White House’s response, or rather, its perceived lack thereof, particularly the president’s absence from public comment. Bolton views this silence not as strategic deliberation but as a sign of internal turmoil, a “self-inflicted wound” on the administration’s credibility rather than a victory for Iran.
The assertion that Trump is in “panic mode” is framed by Bolton as a desire to declare victory and exit the conflict, even if it means compromising objectives like securing the Strait of Hormuz. This suggests a concern that the president may be more focused on managing his public image and finding an expedient exit than on the broader strategic implications of the situation. The fact that this conflict is “upsetting” the president is seen as a problem not just for him, but for the country, implying that his emotional state is directly influencing national security decisions.
However, some interpretations of Trump’s behavior suggest a different dynamic than outright panic. Instead of panic, some believe he is in a state of denial, actively dismissing any discussion of the downed pilots or the ongoing search efforts. This perspective paints a picture of a leader who is deflecting blame, potentially even towards the pilots themselves, rather than confronting the reality of the situation. The idea is that Trump is more concerned with his personal agenda, such as constructing buildings, than with the lives of American service members.
The notion of Trump being in “panic mode” is also viewed by some with skepticism, given his past actions and rhetoric. There’s a sentiment that a leader who has demonstrated a certain detachment from consequences might not truly be panicking, but rather operating from a place of self-interest or even a perceived invincibility. The narrative of the U.S. military’s aura being damaged is seen as a significant long-term problem, suggesting that the implications of these attacks run deeper than immediate political fallout.
The irony of John Bolton, a known advocate for military action against Iran for decades, now characterizing the situation as “panic mode” is not lost on observers. Despite this, there’s an acknowledgment that Bolton might not be entirely wrong about the optics. The swiftness with which Iran has apparently demonstrated its capability to engage and down U.S. aircraft, especially after claims of Iranian air defenses being “decimated,” creates a stark contrast and a narrative that is difficult for the White House to spin positively.
The specific events – the downing of an F-15E, the A-10 being hit and crashing, and Blackhawks facing ground fire during rescue missions – highlight a rapidly escalating and unfavorable situation for the U.S. When a promised “swift and decisive victory” appears to be leading to significant losses and escalating demands for funding, the concept of “losing” takes on a concerning dimension. This situation is likened to the “Sunk Cost Fallacy,” where continued investment is made in a failing endeavor.
Furthermore, the framing of Iran’s actions as “attacks” on U.S. fighter jets is questioned by some. There’s a perspective that Iran is acting defensively, protecting its airspace against what are perceived as incursions. The expectation that Iran should passively accept aerial bombardment over its territory is seen as unreasonable by this viewpoint.
The potential for the downed aircraft wreckage to be analyzed by adversaries like Russia or China adds another layer of concern, suggesting that even in defeat, valuable intelligence could be compromised. This, combined with the possibility of Trump being more preoccupied with leisure activities like golfing, paints a picture of a leader whose priorities are misaligned with the gravity of the unfolding events. The idea that Trump is intentionally working to “destroy America” and may be a “Russian asset” is also put forth, suggesting deep-seated distrust in his motives and loyalty.
The consistent predictions of Trump’s “doom” by figures like John Bolton lead some to question the credibility of such pronouncements, particularly from individuals with their own controversial histories. There’s a sentiment that Bolton, despite his criticisms of Trump’s handling of the situation, is still a “draft dodging war monger” himself and perhaps frustrated by his lack of direct influence on current policy.
The potential for Iran to showcase a captured pilot would undoubtedly exacerbate the unfavorable optics and underscore the administration’s predicament. The irony is noted that Bolton, who has long advocated for war with Iran, is now highlighting the “panic mode” optics of a situation he may have contributed to creating. The sequence of events, from claims of air dominance to the loss of aircraft and potential loss of personnel, presents a significant challenge to the White House’s narrative.
The criticism extends to the media’s reliance on Bolton as an expert, given his past advocacy for war and his alleged attempts to pressure Trump into military action. The preference for interviews with individuals who have accurately predicted the conflict’s trajectory, rather than those who have consistently pushed for escalation, is voiced. When even Bolton, a proponent of military intervention, is critical, it suggests a level of strategic failure that is profound.
The ongoing conflict is also viewed by some as a distraction from other significant issues, such as the Epstein files. The strategic implications of Iran’s actions, particularly concerning the Strait of Hormuz, are seen as predictable, and the administration’s surprise at Iran’s response is viewed as a failure of foresight. The human and financial costs of the conflict, coupled with the prevailing narrative of lies and Twitter rants, contribute to a sense of frustration and disillusionment.
The repeated justifications for the war, such as Iran’s alleged support for terrorism or its nuclear ambitions, are dismissed by some as “bullshit excuses.” The broader geopolitical implications, including the potential for Russia to gain a monopoly on global oil and the perception of the U.S. subsidizing not only Israel’s defense but also its offensive actions, add to the complexity of the situation.
Ultimately, the assessment of Trump’s response to the Iranian attacks varies, but the notion of him being in “panic mode,” as suggested by John Bolton, resonates with a significant portion of the commentary. Whether it’s genuine panic, denial, or a calculated strategy, the situation is viewed as a critical juncture with far-reaching consequences for the United States and its role in the world. The underlying sentiment is one of deep concern about the president’s decision-making, his personal motivations, and the potential for long-term damage to America’s standing.