Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-06
Source: The Conversation – France in French (3)– By Frédérique Sandretto, Lecturer in American Civilization, Côte d’Azur University
On the issue of the war in Iran, Donald Trump develops a performative statement, imbued withwishful thinkingand often far from the reality on the ground, whether it is to justify the launch of Operation Epic Fury or to inform public opinion of its progress and purpose. Escaping constitutional obligations, neglecting checks and balances, it seems engaged in a solitary forward race whose outcome appears particularly uncertain.
The 1erIn April 2026, in hisaddress to the nation, Donald Trump is not only speaking to his fellow citizens. He is trying to impose his interpretation of the world on all the countries of the international community. In a context of endless war against Iran, increasing energy tensions, and internal political weakening, his speech appears more as an act of framing than as an exposition of the situation. He does not describe reality; he reconfigures it around a narrative according to which, in the Middle East, his army controls the situation, has already made rapid progress, and has practically achieved a definitive and resounding victory.
This discursive operation is based on a central mechanism, namely the systematic minimization of the constraints and risks faced by Operation Epic Fury. But beyond this framing, a deeper evolution emerges: that of an exercise of power marked by a form of omnipotence, where institutional counter-powers appear marginalized.
Denial of economic difficulties and assertion of an absolute urgency
The first aspect of this denial concerns the economic dimension of the conflict. While theoil prices are continuously increasingand that looms thepossibility of a third oil shock, the president reduces these changes to a simple transient phenomenon, stating that prices will quickly come back down and that there is no reason to worry.
This interpretation ignores the deeper dynamics of the energy market: supply tensions, geopolitical uncertainties, increased speculation. However, the effects are already being felt in the daily lives of Americans: rising prices, inflationary pressure, concerns about growth. By presenting this situation as temporary, the discourse avoids drawing political and strategic consequences. It substitutes analysis with an implicit promise of a quick return to normal.
This economic denial is closely linked to the doctrine put forward, that of security preemption. Trumpaffirmsto have taken action just before the Iranian nuclear threat became an irreversible reality. This justification allows turning a war of choice into a strategic necessity. It simplifies the reasoning by opposing immediate action to future catastrophe. But this framing relies on a hypothesis that cannot be verified in the short term and tends to exclude any diplomatic alternative. The complexity of the Iranian issue disappears in favor of a binary reading where force becomes the only relevant instrument.
This logic also allows for justifying a bypass of the classic institutional procedures, notably theRole of Congress in authorizing the use of force. The launch of operations against Iran fits within this dynamic: the decision precedes deliberation and tends to render it secondary.
Multiple contradictions
This report submitted to Congress is not unprecedented. It extends a practice of power already observable in January, duringthe operation conducted against Nicolas Maduro, captured during an American operation conducted without parliamentary consultation. This episode revealed a top-down approach to decision-making, where operational efficiency takes precedence over procedural legitimacy. It sets an illuminating precedent for understanding the current sequence: the marginalization of checks and balances is not an exception, but a method.
At the same time, the president is constructing a narrative of victory. Hestates that the objectives are on track to be achieved, that Iranian capabilities have been severely degraded and that the end of the conflict is near. This staging contrasts with the available data: the Iranian regime remains, military capabilities persist, and the risk of regional expansion remains high. The gap between the actual situation and its representation reflects a desire to symbolically close the war before its effective resolution. This process aims to reassure public opinion, but it also reinforces the disconnect between discourse and facts.
The contradictions of the discourse appear even more clearly in the recent sequence of diplomatic and military announcements.A fifteen-point peace proposal has been put forwardend of March, followed by the assertion thatthe establishment of a ceasefire would be on the right track. In his speech, however, the president mentions the possibility of“to bring Iran back to the stone age”and is considering strikes on electrical infrastructures. This coexistence of opposing registers — de-escalation and total destruction — makes the strategic line difficult to read. It gives the impression of a fluctuating policy, guided more by impulse than by coherent planning.
Lone rider
To these tensions is added a growing diplomatic isolation. The questioning of European allies, accused of lack of cooperation, andthe mention of a withdrawal from NATOreinforce the image of a president acting alone. This lone wolf stance fits into a logic of omnipotence, where external constraint is seen as a hindrance rather than a lever. However, it weakens the United States’ ability to manage the consequences of the conflict, particularly in terms of energy and security.
Denial finally takes on an inner dimension. While opinion polls place the presidentaround 31% favorable opinions, he continues to present his policy as being largely supported by his population. This dissonance is part of a strategy of legitimization through speech. The aim is to assert success in order to produce political effects. But this logic meets its limits when economic indicators deteriorate and the cost of the war becomes tangible.
In this context, the question of checks and balances reemerges strongly. In the United States, the institutional system is based on a balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, the current sequence gives the impression of a growing imbalance, where the president acts according to his own decisions, without apparent constraint.
Forward race
As the November 2026 midterm elections approach, this strategy appears risky. If energy prices continue to rise and if the war does not find a quick resolution, the narrative of control could turn against its author. The denial, which today allows for maintaining political coherence, could tomorrow accentuate the perception of a gap between the discourse and the reality.
Nothing in the presidential posture suggests a shift. The ongoing dynamic is based on a constant affirmation of will and on the conviction that power can free itself from constraints. This logic of omnipotence sidelines institutions, ignores economic signals, and simplifies strategic issues. It gives the impression that no real limit is imposed on presidential action.
From then on, the question remains entirely: where will Trump stop? Because the more power considers itself unlimited, the more it exposes itself to the moment when reality inevitably ends up imposing one.
Frédérique Sandretto does not work for, advise, own shares in, or receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no other affiliation than her research institution.
–ref. How far will Trump go? –https://theconversation.com/how-far-will-trump-go-279882