Trump was curious about why the Mullahs were not fazed by threats
Analysis Summary
This article tries to convince you that negotiating with Iran is pointless and dangerous because their leaders are irrational and intent on destroying Israel. It uses strong emotional language and relies heavily on the opinions of certain 'authorities' to make its case, while leaving out important details that could offer a different perspective. It doesn't provide much robust, verified evidence to back up its claims, instead leaning on emotionally charged statements and selective reporting.
Cross-Outlet PSYOP Detected
This article is part of a narrative being pushed across multiple outlets:
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"Of all murky lunacies, redoing nuclear talks with born liars and lunatics is the most comic, the most stupid, the most perilous."
This uses strong, absolute language ('most comic', 'most stupid', 'most perilous') to suggest an extreme and unparalleled situation, demanding attention due to its supposed severity.
"Hitler condemned his own troops to the pitiless Russian winter so that trains to death camps would continue to run and oven chimneys would continue to smoke."
This historical anecdote, presented in vivid and unexpected detail, acts as a novelty spike to capture and hold attention, drawing a dramatic parallel to the current situation being discussed.
"The truth lies deeper. Yes, there’s nothing calculated in verbal attacks of the kind that Iran makes. Like a volcano they seem to emanate from some deep superheated disturbance."
This frames the subsequent explanation as a profound, hidden truth, implying that previous understandings were superficial and that the reader is about to receive a groundbreaking insight.
Authority signals
"Steve Apfel is an economist and former director and founder of the School of Management Accounting. He is a veteran authority on anti-Zionism."
The article opens by establishing the author's credibility through academic and professional titles, and explicitly labeling him a 'veteran authority', to lend weight to his subsequent arguments.
"Milgram obedience dynamic"
Though not a direct quote from an expert in the article, the mention of 'Milgram obedience dynamic' alludes to psychological research to imply a deeper, scientifically understood mechanism at play, leveraging the perceived authority of psychological studies.
"Goldberg begged to disagree. “It’s my belief that it is difficult to negotiate with parties that are captive to a conspiratorial anti-Semitic worldview; not because they hold offensive views, but because they hold ridiculous views… I don’t believe that the regime can be counted on to be entirely rational.""
The article uses Jeffrey Goldberg's quoted opinion as an 'expert' view to support its claim about the irrationality of the Iranian regime, contrasting it with Obama's perceived naivety.
"Walter Russell Mead illuminates the phenomenon.“Nations and political establishments warped by this hatred tend to make one dumb decision after another - starting at shadows, warding off imaginary dangers, misunderstanding the nature of problems they face.""
Citing Walter Russell Mead and directly quoting his 'illumination' serves as an appeal to an intellectual authority to validate the article's position on the destructive nature of radical hatred.
Tribe signals
"Obama played his cards in Lausanne in 2015 and Biden after five years bet on Vienna. Under President Trump Geneva’s turn came."
This sets up an 'us (the American presidents) versus them (the Iranian regime)' dynamic, framing the presidents' diplomatic efforts as a struggle against an intractable foreign entity.
"Zionists getting America to fight their wars are not the flavour of the day."
This statement weaponizes the 'Zionist' identity by implying they manipulate America into conflicts, creating an 'us-vs-them' dynamic where 'Zionists' are an antagonist to American interests.
"Obama doesn’t seem to fully understand that anti-Semites actually believe the dangerous and idiotic things they say.' Had he not been a died-in-the-wool Democrat, perhaps Goldberg would have paid closer attention to the President’s own ‘take’ on the subject."
This creates an 'us-vs-them' dynamic by suggesting that political affiliation ('died-in-the-wool Democrat') blinds individuals to certain truths, implying that those outside this group (the author and like-minded readers) possess clearer insight.
"It’s my belief that it is difficult to negotiate with parties that are captive to a conspiratorial anti-Semitic worldview; not because they hold offensive views, but because they hold ridiculous views… I don’t believe that the regime can be counted on to be entirely rational."
This tribalizes the issue by labeling the opposing party's worldview as 'conspiratorial anti-Semitic' and 'ridiculous', positioning them as fundamentally irrational and outside the realm of reason, making it impossible to align with them.
Emotion signals
"In any event, Witkoff grasped they were in no deal-making mood. Far from it. “In that first meeting, the (two) Iranian negotiators said to us, with no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60 percent, and are aware they could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance.""
This quote is presented to evoke outrage by depicting the Iranian negotiators as brazenly and 'with no shame' threatening nuclear proliferation, implying a dangerous and unacceptable situation.
"Not merely try: literally to beg, bribe, borrow and - yes, defeat the ends of justice - to keep the l’s and l’s skylarking in the meeting room."
This sentence uses highly emotive and negative descriptors ('beg, bribe, borrow', 'defeat the ends of justice', 'skylarking') to generate outrage and contempt for Obama's diplomatic approach.
"The truth lies deeper. Yes, there’s nothing calculated in verbal attacks of the kind that Iran makes. Like a volcano they seem to emanate from some deep superheated disturbance."
This frames the author's understanding as possessing a 'deeper truth' and implies a superior grasp of the situation, suggesting that others (like Obama) failed to comprehend this fundamental irrationality.
"When a core figure warns that Iran needs only 24 hours and an excuse to wipe Israel off the map, he’s not mad at Israel’s deeds. He’s passionately in love with hating Jews. Anti-Semites are not, as the phrase goes, in their right minds. In a real sense they are out of their minds."
This passage directly engineers fear by describing the threat against Israel as existential ('wipe Israel off the map') and attributing it to an uncontrollable, irrational, 'out of their minds' hatred, highlighting an imminent and unpredictable danger.
"But it does: ergo the fatal move which ultimately cost the Third Reich victory. No one taught Obama that the extermination of Jews was not a means to an end but an end in itself? He doesn’t know that the Final Solution was not a part of the war effort, it was fully equal to the whole war effort?"
This uses highly provocative and emotionally charged comparisons to the Holocaust and the 'Final Solution' to evoke outrage and disbelief at Obama's perceived misunderstanding, suggesting a catastrophic failure of judgment.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to instill the belief that negotiating with Iran is futile and dangerous due to their inherent 'lunacy,' 'anti-Semitism,' and irrationality. It seeks to establish that Iranian leaders are driven by an unyielding desire to destroy Israel and cannot be reasoned with through traditional diplomatic means. Furthermore, it attempts to portray past US administrations (Obama, partially Trump) as naive or even compromised for attempting diplomacy.
The article shifts the context of international diplomacy from a pragmatic negotiation process involving complex state actors to a moralistic battle against 'true believers' driven by 'passion' and 'hatred.' By emphasizing the 'anti-Semitic' nature of the Iranian regime as an overarching, unyielding force, it redefines the parameters for engagement, suggesting that standard diplomatic solutions are irrelevant or even harmful. This framing makes a hardline, non-negotiating stance appear as the only logical and safe approach.
The article omits context regarding the geopolitical complexities and strategic interests that might drive Iran's actions beyond pure ideology (e.g., regional power dynamics, US sanctions' impact, internal political considerations). It bypasses detailed historical context of the nuclear program and previous negotiations, specific concessions or conditions proposed by sides, or alternative perspectives on the efficacy or necessity of diplomatic engagement. It also omits the outcomes or consequences of the 'hardline' strategies it implicitly advocates, such as increased aggression, proxy conflicts, or direct military confrontation. The article also omits the context of the validity or methodology of the 'February 19-23 poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs' to support its claim about Trump's judgment being doubted, making the poll's implication feel more authoritative without scrutiny.
The reader is nudged toward endorsing a hardline, non-negotiating stance with Iran, potentially even supporting military action or regime change, as diplomacy is portrayed as utterly futile and dangerous. It grants permission to disregard diplomatic solutions as naive and to view any engagement with Iran as a form of appeasement to an irrational, inherently hostile entity. It also encourages a certain contempt for leaders who pursue diplomatic paths with Iran.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"When a core figure warns that Iran needs only 24 hours and an excuse to wipe Israel off the map, he’s not mad at Israel’s deeds. He’s passionately in love with hating Jews. Anti-Semites are not, as the phrase goes, in their right minds. In a real sense they are out of their minds. A passion can do that."
"Two motives scrambled the only black President’s grey matter. One motive was ending his term of office with a signature legacy, capped by the Nobel Peace Prize. The second was not a human failing at all. The 44th President said he meant to empower the madcap theocracy, not bring it down. Iran, hitherto America’s number one foe, was going to be, in the world’s number one hotspot, America’s number one ally."
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"His golf pal Steve Witkoff seemingly playing off a higher handicap when acting to stop wars, went through the motions of giving the Mullah team another chance. I’m sorry, but I struggle to give the real estate developer the time of day as an authentic broker of global peace."
"If you dare cross this line I shall draw a new one."
Techniques Found(15)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"Steve Apfel is an economist and former director and founder of the School of Management Accounting. He is a veteran authority on anti-Zionism."
The author establishes his own authority at the beginning of the article by listing his credentials and claiming to be a 'veteran authority on anti-Zionism.' This is used to lend credibility to his subsequent arguments.
"blatant insanity."
This phrase uses emotionally charged and negative language to describe the situation, aiming to evoke a strong emotional response and pre-frame the issue as irrational.
"Mullah team"
Using 'Mullah team' is a derogatory label that diminishes the legitimacy and professionalism of the Iranian negotiators, framing them negatively from the outset.
"I’m sorry, but I struggle to give the real estate developer the time of day as an authentic broker of global peace."
The author explicitly expresses doubt about Steve Witkoff's credibility and suitability as a peace broker without providing specific evidence, thereby undermining his perceived competence.
"murky lunacies"
This phrase uses emotionally charged and negative language ('murky,' 'lunacies') to describe the nuclear talks, intending to create a sense of irrationality and danger.
"the most comic, the most stupid, the most perilous."
This uses hyperbole to describe the talks, exaggerating their negative qualities to evoke a strong negative reaction from the reader.
"Two motives scrambled the only black President’s grey matter. One motive was ending his term of office with a signature legacy, capped by the Nobel Peace Prize. The second was not a human failing at all. The 44th President said he meant to empower the madcap theocracy, not bring it down."
The author attributes Obama's complex foreign policy decisions to just two motives, oversimplifying the intricate factors that would typically influence such high-stakes negotiations. It also implies a singular, simple cause for his actions.
"madcap theocracy"
This is a derogatory label used to diminish the legitimacy of the Iranian government, framing it as irrational and out of control.
"clockwork buffoon"
This is a demeaning label used to dismiss Joe Biden, framing him as an incompetent and unthinking figure.
"evil regime"
This emotionally charged phrase is used to demonize the Iranian government, evoking strong moral condemnation from the audience.
"Most American adults began to doubt Trump's judgment, if a February 19-23 poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs is accurate."
This sentence questions Trump's judgment by referencing a poll, subtly undermining his credibility and competence without directly stating he is wrong, but adding the caveat 'if...is accurate' introduces an element of doubt in the poll's veracity itself while still presenting the claim.
"Zionists getting America to fight their wars are not the flavour of the day."
This phrase uses emotionally charged and potentially inflammatory language, tapping into anti-Zionist sentiment and portraying a specific group as manipulating American interests. 'Flavour of the day' also minimizes the severity of the issue while making it sound like a fleeting trend.
"pettish boy"
This belittling label is used to undermine Trump's demeanor and seriousness, reducing him to an infantile figure.
"“There are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core regime, but they also are interested in maintaining power." Goldberg begged to disagree. “It’s my belief that it is difficult to negotiate with parties that are captive to a conspiratorial anti-Semitic worldview; not because they hold offensive views, but because they hold ridiculous views… I don’t believe that the regime can be counted on to be entirely rational.""
While presenting a dialogue, the author uses the quotes to describe the Iranian regime as holding 'ridiculous views' and not being 'entirely rational.' This vague and subjective language dismisses their perspective without specific argumentation, hindering clear understanding or debate.
"But it does: ergo the fatal move which ultimately cost the Third Reich victory. No one taught Obama that the extermination of Jews was not a means to an end but an end in itself? He doesn’t know that the Final Solution was not a part of the war effort, it was fully equal to the whole war effort? He’s not aware that resources needed for winning the war were diverted to the higher priority of putting Jews to death?"
This passage simplifies the complex reasons for the Third Reich's defeat by attributing it primarily to the 'extermination of Jews' as an 'end in itself,' implying a single, overriding cause for a multi-faceted historical event. It also directly links Obama's understanding to this oversimplification.