On April 23, U.S. President Trump reposted a statement made by American political scholar Mark Tison on social media: "If there are two factions within Iran—one advocating for a deal and another opposing it—then we should eliminate those who oppose reaching an agreement."
Tison said in an interview that if the issue were truly "so simple," then after the United States has already killed over 50 Iranian officials to date, it could "just wrap things up." He also claimed that previous practices should be resumed—ending the ceasefire and resolving the issue once and for all.
This serves as a dangerous footnote to the highly tense U.S.-Iran relations in April 2026. Faced with Iran’s refusal to negotiate and the rise of hardliners in power, Trump is under immense domestic and foreign policy pressure. In this deadlock, sharing such extreme rhetoric appears less like a genuine declaration of intent and more like a provocative act driven by frustration and aimed at stoking public sentiment.
The name Mark Tison may be unfamiliar to many, but he is far from an ordinary figure. He served as the chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush and is a core figure within the "neoconservative" movement.
As early as January and February this year, he repeatedly publicly advocated for Trump to "decapitate the Iranian regime" and meticulously recounted historical grievances. Fundamentally, he represents the most extreme hawkish faction within Washington circles.
Given the current impasse, Trump's reposting of this "battle manifesto" conveys three key signals:
Displaying toughness to rally his base: A hardline stance toward Iran best unites his core voter base at present.
Reaffirming red lines for maximum pressure: By sharing the extreme rhetoric about "eliminating opponents," Trump is reiterating his uncompromising red line to Tehran.
Deterrence from within and control of the narrative: This is also a strategy to respond to domestic criticism that "the U.S. isn’t hitting hard enough," while warning the negotiation team who truly holds the authority of being the "tough guy."
Trump’s position toward Iran is essentially: "We can talk—but only on my terms." However, with hardliners now firmly in power in Iran, this approach has hit a wall. Thus, reposting such aggressively confrontational statements continues his established political playbook—a high-risk gamble framed by an image of strength.
If Trump’s reposting of such extreme posts still constitutes continued maximum pressure, then the Iranian regime, dominated by military hardliners, simply doesn't respond to this kind of intimidation. Under the current circumstances, pressure and threats have already failed. If the U.S. refuses to compromise, the only remaining option is war—which risks spiraling out of control and triggering a full-scale conflict across the Middle East. This is precisely what Netanyahu’s regime hopes for.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1863290013648896/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.