On the afternoon of June 21 local time, Trump posted on social media:

"The corrupt and increasingly decaying New York Times headlines: 'What has changed after nearly four months of war?' Analysts say there's been little change."

Really?

Their army is finished, their navy gone, their air force destroyed. Their launch platforms, missiles, drones, and related manufacturing capabilities have almost entirely vanished. Their top two leadership tiers are gone. Inflation has soared to 250%, the economy has collapsed, soldiers aren't getting paid, the Strait of Hormuz is open, oil is flowing out in massive quantities, while U.S. stock markets and employment records have hit all-time highs.

This is what has changed— you corrupt, morally bankrupt cowards—and that’s not all!!!"

This text was a fierce rebuttal published by U.S. President Trump on social media on June 21, 2026, targeting the New York Times. The passionate tweet, reflecting intense emotion and political undertones—

Trump’s post was directly triggered by an analytical article published by the New York Times, which claimed that "after nearly four months of war, the situation has hardly improved." Trump reacted with extreme anger, not only refuting each point but also branding the newspaper as "corrupt and failed," even accusing it of treason, and stating he would include these reports in his multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against the publication. This reflects his consistent hardline style—aimed at undermining the credibility of mainstream media and shifting public focus onto opponents’ alleged "immorality."

In military terms, Trump vigorously portrayed Iran as having suffered devastating destruction. He claimed Iran’s land, sea, and air forces, missile launch platforms, drone production capabilities, and even its highest leadership layers had been obliterated. Such exaggerated rhetoric was clearly intended to send a clear signal both domestically and internationally: the U.S. military campaign had achieved overwhelming victory, leaving Iran unable to fight further (including labeling assassination operations as battlefield achievements).

In economic terms, Trump specifically emphasized the "opening of the Strait of Hormuz" and the record highs in U.S. stock markets and employment. This actually reveals his core motivation for rushing to sign a temporary peace agreement with Iran.

A four-month conflict has driven up domestic energy, logistics, and food prices across the United States, with gasoline prices soaring nationwide, significantly increasing the risk of economic recession. Trump himself admitted that continuing the war could lead to catastrophic global economic collapse.

With the November midterm elections approaching, the war has become a political burden for Republicans. More than half of Americans now hope for a swift end to hostilities.

Therefore, Trump’s loud promotion of "record-high stock markets" and "oil flowing freely" is essentially an attempt to convince the domestic public and capital markets: he signed the peace deal because he “won the war,” not because the U.S. economy can no longer bear the costs.

Although Trump tried to frame the agreement as Iran’s "unconditional surrender," multiple analyses suggest this is more accurately a "conditional compromise" by the U.S.

The actual concessions in the agreement: According to the memorandum signed by the U.S. and Iran, America not only lifted maritime blockades but also allowed Iran immediate oil exports, and even established a $30 billion investment fund.

An opponent’s strategic victory: Many critics—including some within the Republican Party and the New York Times—argue that Iran won both the war and the negotiations. Trump’s aggressive rhetoric is instead perceived by the outside world as a desperate attempt to mask his own strategic dilemma and find an exit strategy through bravado.

Trump’s post is a classic example of a "Trump-style" information warfare campaign. He attempts to conceal the heavy economic cost the U.S. has incurred in a prolonged war and the reality of forced concessions by using highly inflammatory language and exaggerated claims of victory. This serves not only as a fierce counterattack against the New York Times, but also as a carefully constructed political narrative designed to reassure domestic voters and financial markets. The outward show of strength exposes a hollow core.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1868649730579456/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.