US President Donald Trump did not invent the phrase “fake news,” but he undoubtedly transformed it into a political weapon, relentlessly accusing critical media of fabricating unfavorable narratives.

The deeper irony, however, is harder to dismiss. Trump himself has exhibited a persistent disregard for factual consistency. Whether he believes his own claims is ultimately beside the point; what matters is that his record has eroded any reasonable basis for trust.

His war on Iran illustrates this contradiction with striking clarity. Trump has repeatedly spoken of his commitment to a negotiated resolution with Tehran. Yet, at critical junctures—often in tandem with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—his administration has moved toward escalation, authorising or supporting strikes even as diplomatic language dominated public discourse.

This is not an isolated contradiction, but a pattern.

Prior to the US-Israeli escalation in June 2025, Washington projected sustained optimism regarding diplomatic progress with Tehran, with messaging centered on possible agreements and ongoing indirect negotiations, reportedly facilitated by regional intermediaries such as Oman. 

Yet, during and immediately following this period of diplomatic signaling, the United States and Israel proceeded with large-scale military strikes on Iranian targets, effectively collapsing the very negotiations that had been publicly emphasised.

The same pattern repeated itself on 28th February 2026. In the days leading up to the escalation, and even as discussions were believed to be underway through indirect channels, Trump continued to speak of potential deals and positive diplomatic momentum. However, these signals were swiftly overtaken by coordinated military action, reinforcing the perception that negotiations had once again functioned as a strategic cover for escalation rather than a genuine attempt at resolution.

READ: Trump pauses strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure for 5 days after ‘productive’ talks

Prior to earlier escalatory phases, Washington signaled that diplomatic channels remained active, reportedly through intermediaries such as Oman. At the same time, however, the US was expanding its military footprint in the region. The outcome was predictable: negotiations provided the appearance of restraint, while preparations for confrontation........

© Middle East Monitor