Strategic Deception:Analyzing Trump's Alleged Misrepresentation of the B-2 Bomber Strike on Iran Through Mearsheimer's Framework of Strategic Lies and War Avoidance
Abdinasir H. Muhumed (Timoweyne)
Donald Trump's presidency was marked by numerous statements and controversial
decisions, particularly in foreign policy. One of those cases involved Trump's
alleged claim on a B-2 bombers strike in Iran. This statement can be critically
analyzed through the theory of strategic lies of John Mearsheimer and the logic
of the avoidance of war in international relations. Understanding this context
helps to reveal the complexities behind national narratives and the possible
consequences that follow.
Mearsheimer postulates that states often participate in strategic lies to achieve certain
political objectives. A strategic lie, according to him, is an intentional
falsehood used to advance state interests, particularly in the field of
international security (Mearsheimer and Rosato 2023, 4). In the case of Trump's
alleged lie about B-2 bomber, we must first understand the context and
motivations behind such a statement. According to Trapara, Trump was known for
the lack of a great clear strategy in foreign policy, which sometimes led to
confusing or contradictory statements (Trapara 2017, 56-70). This inconsistency
raises questions about whether the claim on strike B-2 was an intentional lie
or simply a product of its unpredictable communication style.
The theory of strategic lies suggests that these statements are not always simple.
When such statements are made, they can be seen as tools for manipulation,
either to gather domestic support or to position the United States against
adversaries. For example, if Trump had manufactured this narrative, he could
have been aimed at demonstrating US military capacity and resolving both Iran
and other nations (Ć¼lgĆ¼l 2020, 98-114). By exaggerating military actions,
leaders can reinforce their image as strong defenders of national security, an
approach that can resonate with segments of the population that seeks decisive
leadership.
Inaddition, Mearsheimer's work emphasizes the idea that states often lie to avoid
war. This is aligned with the logic of the avoidance of war in international
relations, where leaders use rhetoric to calm tensions without growing
conflicts (Mearsheimer 2021, 48). During Trump's presidency, tensions with Iran
were high, particularly after the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran
Nuclear Agreement. In this volatile atmosphere, a declaration on military
action, even if false, could serve Iran that the United States would respond
strongly to any aggressive movement.
This approach resonates with the traditional realistic vision of international
relations, which states that states act mainly in their own interest (Donnelly
2005, 29-54). The use of Bluster could have been destined to dissuade Iranian
aggression without initiating military conflicts. However, the consequences of
such statements can be dangerous. If adversaries perceive a lantern, they can
miscalculate the answers.
Taking in to account the broader foreign policy approach to Trump, many experts have
indicated that their actions often reflected a combination of realistic and
idealistic impulses (Brands 2018). His statements could be a form of strategic
ambiguity, a tactic often used to maintain flexibility in international
relations. However, as Gartzke and Lindsay highlight, the complexity of
deterrence and military strategy in global politics complicates this maneuver
(2024). The effectiveness of a lie depends not only on the immediate context
but also on how adversaries interpret such statements over time.
Schulenburg analyzes how US foreign policy. His claim on strike B-2 works as a case study
in the interpretation of US military intention. Ambiguity can serve both to
reassure allies and to cause fears in the adversaries, depending on how they
perceive the US resolution at a given time.
Inaddition, the environment of social networks and instant communication creates
a unique challenge for leaders. Perhaps Trump's statements about military
actions reflect the pressures to maintain a strong public personality in the
digital information era. The rapid propagation of erroneous information can
significantly destabilize international relations, since nations base their
responses on the public pronouncements of leaders (HOEM 2020).
Interms of Iran specifically, Abediny Koshkuieh and his colleagues point out that
the United States foreign policy towards Iran was significantly affected by
Trump's administration strategies, which often implied a greater rhetorical
aggression along with strategic deception (Abediny Koshkuieh et al. 2024,
219-244). This environmental backdrop underlines Trump's potential reasons in
misrepresenting military actions. Create a paradox in which to exaggerate
defensive capacity can lead to peace, but it could also lead to a calculation
error that precipitates the conflict.
Mearsheimer's analysis of how states think they support these implications even more.
Countries often evaluate threats based on narratives and national statements of
leaders (Mearsheimer and Rosato 2023, 4). Therefore, a single deceptive
statement could alter how a State perceives the balance of power or threat
levels, which can lead to different strategic options. In the case of Trump's
statement about B-2 bomber, this could mean that they will involuntarily
intensify their own military preparation in response to perceived threats.
To conclude, the analysis of Donald Trump's alleged lie about the B-2 bombers
strike in Iran through Mearsheimer's lens offers information about strategic
diplomacy and the role of rhetoric in international relations. The statements
made by leaders can often mask deeper strategies aimed at deterrence and
avoidance of war. However, the delicate balance of perceptions in global policy
also stands out. Without careful consideration of how the statements will be
received, the risky of crafts risks inciting unwanted climbs, which could lead
to the same conflicts they seek to avoid. Therefore, the intersection of
strategic lies and the logic of war avoiding remains a vital study area in
understanding the dynamics of international relations.
Citations:
Trapara,Vladimir. Does Trump have a grand strategy?. The Review of International
Affairs 68, no. 1168 (2017): 56-70.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1070369
Mearsheimer,John J. The inevitable rivalry: America, China, and the tragedy of great-power
politics. Foreign Aff. 100 (2021): 48.
https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/fora100Ā§ion=148
ĆlgĆ¼l,Murat. Mixing Grand Strategies: Trump and International Security. The
International Spectator 55, no. 3 (2020): 98-114.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03932729.2020.1786928%4010.1080/tfocoll.2022.0.issue-Populism-within-and-beyond-the-West
Kurthen,Hermann. Present at the destruction? Grand strategy imperatives of US foreign
policy experts during the Trump presidency. European Journal of International
Security 6, no. 1 (2021): 1-24.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-international-security/article/present-at-the-destruction-grand-strategy-imperatives-of-us-foreign-policy-experts-during-the-trump-presidency/92044CFD738E75859362EF96E698DFB3
AbedinyKoshkuieh, Hasan, Hossein Masoudnia, and Mahnaz Goodarzi. Analyzing Factors
Affecting Trumpās Foreign Policy against Iran: Lessons for Iran. International
Studies Journal (ISJ) 20, no. 4 (2024): 219-244.
https://www.isjq.ir/article_187125.html?lang=en
Hoem,Truls Bjerke. The End of Engagement: US Foreign Policy Towards China, From
Obama Through Trump. Master's thesis, 2020.
https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/78725
Schulenburg,Rupert. US strategic adjustment and the second'loss of China': change and
continuity in the China strategies of the Obama, Trump, and Biden
administrations. PhD diss., The University of St Andrews, 2023.
https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/27688
Mearsheimer,John J., and Sebastian Rosato. How states think: the rationality of foreign
policy. Yale University Press, 2023.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tdDPEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Strategic+silence+in+international+politics+Trump+Mearsheimer+war+avoidance+theories&ots=T7tCgD3Wp3&sig=rzyoKKIz3LK15x5RzA7Xip2aUMc
Gartzke,Erik, and Jon R. Lindsay. Elements of Deterrence: Strategy, Technology, and
Complexity in Global Politics. Oxford University Press, 2024.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dAL6EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Strategic+silence+in+international+politics+Trump+Mearsheimer+war+avoidance+theories&ots=-vKHDpWRRU&sig=AyBGZQS0-JFoLQZZ8KwsXjlH5lo
Donnelly,Jack. Realism. Theories of international relations 3 (2005): 29-54.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vsVcEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=Strategic+silence+in+international+politics+Trump+Mearsheimer+war+avoidance+theories&ots=hQ7p6SFVI2&sig=vWax92EUkp1RgGw5AjraAnyAFEc
Brands,Hal. American grand strategy in the age of Trump. Brookings Institution Press,
2018.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WjEtDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Strategic+silence+in+international+politics+Trump+Mearsheimer+war+avoidance+theories&ots=PVCWa2QTXF&sig=0TTdCil9pdeMN6GKEIq7Hj8JA5A
Tow,William. Minilateral securityās relevance to US strategy in the Indo-Pacific:
Challenges and prospects. Contested Multilateralism 2.0 and Asian Security
Dynamics (2020): 47-61.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003018650-4/minilateral-security-relevance-us-strategy-indo-pacific-william-tow
Trapara,Vladimir. An Indefinite War of Attrition: The Biden Administrationās Strategy
for the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Review of International Affairs 76, no. 1193
(2025): 63-83. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1330570
Brooks,Stephen G. Dueling realisms. International Organization 51, no. 3 (1997):
445-477.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/dueling-realisms/77509DCE71AAD6913FCF6AE9DA3BC647
Katzenstein,Peter J., ed. The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world
politics. Columbia University Press, 1996.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bPjkBhKWBOsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Strategic+silence+in+international+politics+Trump+Mearsheimer+war+avoidance+theories&ots=WGoCJVXuH1&sig=izfkI94YbaU04f2PDZoGqst5rOw
