By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” President Donald Trump responded to questions about Iran by asserting the Strait of Hormuz remains open, despite Iranian claims of its closure. Trump initially expressed a desire not to discuss the matter out of respect for the recently deceased Senator Lindsey Graham, but then proceeded to detail recent U.S. strikes against Iran. These strikes were launched following an Iranian drone attack on a container ship in the Strait of Hormuz, which resulted in a missing U.S. civilian crew member. The differing statements from the U.S. and Iran regarding the strait’s status highlight ongoing tensions and its significance as a vital energy route.
Read the original article here
The recent kerfuffle involving a prominent political figure and CNN, centered on the volatile situation in the Strait of Hormuz, highlights a familiar pattern of deflection and frustration. When pressed by CNN reporters about the latest developments in the Strait, an area of significant geopolitical tension, the response was not a detailed explanation or a strategic update, but rather a stark and emphatic directive: “Don’t talk about it.” This immediate shutdown of inquiry signals a clear aversion to discussing a topic that is evidently uncomfortable, perhaps even precarious, for the individual in question.
The immediate context appears to be a string of escalating events in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global oil transportation. Reports suggested a recent incident involving a drone strike on a ship, a development that occurred with alarming speed, reportedly just hours after a supposed deal was struck. This rapid turn of events, from apparent de-escalation to renewed conflict, leaves many questions unanswered and raises concerns about the effectiveness of any diplomatic efforts.
The reaction to the CNN question can be interpreted as a desperate attempt to control the narrative and avoid accountability for what many perceive as a deteriorating situation. Instead of engaging with the complexities and implications of the Strait of Hormuz turmoil, the strategy adopted was one of outright dismissal, a clear indication that the subject is to be avoided at all costs. This tactic, of demanding silence on a matter of public interest and international consequence, is particularly striking coming from a leader who typically thrives on public discourse and the spotlight.
This particular instance of being told “don’t talk about it” echoes broader criticisms leveled against the individual, suggesting a tendency to bluster and present a reality of his own making, rather than confront difficult truths. The sentiment expressed is that instead of addressing the ongoing challenges and potential dangers in the Strait of Hormuz, the preferred approach is to simply wish them away or declare them non-existent. This leaves observers to question the underlying reasons for such a strong aversion to open discussion on a matter of critical importance.
Furthermore, the call to “talk about your war” and the subsequent repetition of “don’t talk about it” reveals a deep-seated reluctance to acknowledge or engage with the reality of escalating conflict. This pattern of avoidance, when confronted with inconvenient truths or pressing issues, is a recurring theme. The frustration is palpable, with many feeling that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is being actively obscured rather than addressed with transparency and a clear plan.
The demand for tangible proof that the Strait is indeed open, such as a demonstration of the US Navy navigating the waters unimpeded, underscores the skepticism surrounding official pronouncements. The call to “STFU” if such proof cannot be provided highlights the public’s demand for action and verifiable assurances over mere rhetoric. The perception is that the situation is precarious, and any attempt to dismiss concerns or avoid discussion is seen as a sign of weakness or an admission of failure.
The reaction also brings to the fore concerns about the freedom of the press. When a president explicitly tells a reporter not to discuss a subject, it raises serious questions about the First Amendment and the role of journalism in holding power accountable. The implication is that certain topics are off-limits, a notion that runs counter to the principles of a free and open society. The continued insistence on avoiding the topic, even in the face of clear evidence of ongoing issues, suggests a deliberate effort to muzzle dissent and control information.
The underlying sentiment is one of disbelief and frustration. The suggestion that the individual “knows fuck all anyway” about the situation in the Strait of Hormuz further fuels the criticism that the calls to avoid discussion stem from ignorance or an unwillingness to grapple with complex realities. The phrase “lost the war to Iran, AGAIN” implies a cyclical pattern of failed strategies and negative outcomes, making the demand for silence all the more galling.
The comparison to a child covering their ears and singing “la la la” to block out unpleasant sounds perfectly encapsulates the perception of this avoidance strategy. It’s a childlike attempt to make an uncomfortable reality disappear simply by refusing to acknowledge it. The idea of making “everything about it” and then diverting attention elsewhere is noted as a potential tactic, but the fundamental issue remains the initial refusal to engage.
The observation that if the individual could focus on one topic, their answer might be more effective, highlights a potential flaw in their communication strategy. However, the core problem isn’t the inability to focus, but the deliberate choice to deflect and deny. The desire for the individual to “focus on one topic” is often met with them jumping between unrelated subjects, further obscuring the original issue.
The notion that this is a sign of increasing nervousness and a desire to “pretend the war with Iran isn’t happening” is a prevalent interpretation. The “Don’t look up” mentality, a call to willful ignorance, is seen as the operative principle. This aversion to confronting difficult realities, particularly concerning international relations and potential conflicts, is a significant concern for many observers.
The comparison to a “5 Year old” who “doesn’t want to talk about it” because “my feelings are hurting” draws a parallel between the political figure’s reaction and that of a child unable to cope with negative emotions or consequences. This infantilizes the leader’s response, suggesting a lack of maturity and an inability to handle criticism or difficult situations with grace and substance.
The prediction that “something big from Iran” is imminent, and that it will be more than just a closure of the Strait this time, adds a layer of urgency and concern. This anticipation of further escalation, coupled with the ongoing denial and avoidance of discussion, paints a picture of a potentially volatile and unmanaged crisis.
Finally, the characterization of these individuals as “sun downing con men” who cannot handle inconvenient conversations because their “con man brain can’t keep up with all the cons” suggests a deep-seated distrust and an interpretation of their actions as manipulative and dishonest. The inability to acknowledge the reality of the Strait of Hormuz situation, and the insistence on “don’t talk about it,” is seen as a symptom of this larger pattern of deceit and evasion.