Donald Trump Is Not a Peacemaker—And CNN's Framing Is Dangerous
- john raymond
- Jun 23
- 4 min read
The decision by CNN to frame Donald Trump’s strikes on Iran as the act of a peacemaker is not simply misleading—it is a profound betrayal of the responsibilities of journalism. It represents a fundamental failure to grasp the nature of the man, the nature of his motives, and the asymmetric dynamics that define modern geopolitical manipulation. Worse, it places the network in the position of laundering lies for an administration whose guiding impulse has always been deceit, not diplomacy.
For years, I have written as both an analyst and a theorist on Trump’s geopolitical behavior. I have argued, and continue to argue, that Trump is not a sovereign actor. He operates in alignment with the interests of Vladimir Putin, and virtually every major foreign policy decision he has made—from his abandonment of Ukraine, to the nullification of the Iran deal, to the sabotage of NATO unity—has served those interests.
Framing Trump as a peacemaker after an unprovoked strike on Iranian nuclear sites is thus not only inaccurate, it is dangerous. It assists a Russian disinformation architecture by giving it mainstream legitimacy.
A Peacemaker Does Not Act This Way
Let us start with definitions. A peacemaker is not merely someone who avoids large-scale war. A peacemaker is one who works through dialogue, restraint, and multilateral institutions to prevent conflict before it arises. Trump’s record is the opposite of this. He has undercut the Iran deal, praised Putin’s invasions, stoked North Korean brinksmanship for spectacle, and refused to de-escalate conflicts when given the chance.
Even now, Trump continues to posture as if his strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were reluctantly ordered, claiming he had “no choice.” But this is false on its face. There was no immediate threat, no 9/11 moment, no act of aggression by Iran to which the United States was compelled to respond. There was only the longstanding, unresolved dynamic of an emboldened Iran seeking regional leverage—and a U.S. president eager to change the headlines at home, distract from his electoral peril, and serve Russian aims abroad.
If Trump were truly interested in peace, he would have brought allies together, submitted the issue to the United Nations Security Council, consulted Congress, and opened new channels of dialogue. Instead, he acted unilaterally, bombed in the dark, and then called it peace. That is not peacemaking. That is theater.
The Larger Framework: Distraction and Deception
To understand Trump’s strike against Iran, one must grasp the strategic logic behind it—not in terms of national interest, but in terms of asymmetric warfare and autocratic alignment. Putin, whose grip on Ukraine has weakened due to successful Ukrainian cyber-operations and regional setbacks, needed a diversion. Iran—a longtime Russian client—was always the obvious choice. Stir chaos in the Middle East, and Western focus fractures.
Create a crisis between the U.S. and Iran, and NATO loses unity. Distract Washington with Tehran, and Kyiv is left more vulnerable.
Trump’s decision to strike was not driven by necessity. It was manufactured. And CNN, by uncritically echoing his framing, legitimates the con. Their responsibility was not to repeat the administration’s language but to investigate the motivations and strategic patterns behind it. Instead, they allowed Trump to label himself a peacemaker—and in doing so, gave cover to the architecture of propaganda.
The Myth of the Peace President
Let us now dispense with the myth that Trump has ever been a peace president. The evidence tells a different story.
He tore up the Iran deal, the most effective nonproliferation agreement of the last decade.
He praised Putin repeatedly, including after the invasion of Ukraine.
He failed to withdraw from Afghanistan, despite promising to do so, and left the task to his successor.
He embraced dictators, fawned over Kim Jong-un, and undermined democratic alliances.
He threatened nuclear war on Twitter.
He moved U.S. policy not through deliberation, but through tantrum and press conference.
And at every step, the damage done served not the American people but the autocrats who benefit from a weaker West.
What CNN Should Have Done
The network’s job was not to rubber-stamp Trump’s narrative. It was to hold it up to scrutiny. It was to ask the questions that matter:
Was there legal authorization for these strikes?
Was Congress consulted?
What were the strategic gains?
How does this serve American interests rather than Russian ones?
Instead, they repeated the frame and allowed Trump to drape himself in a lie—that he acts from restraint, not provocation.
Journalism as the First Line of Defense
In moments of manufactured war, the role of journalism is not to offer balance between a lie and a truth. It is to draw a line, to name the con, to protect the public from becoming complicit in it. By calling Trump’s aggression peacemaking, CNN failed its duty.
This is not just about semantics. It is about whether the media can resist authoritarian spectacle, whether it can see through the fog of deception, and whether it has the analytical competence to call a strike what it is: a violation of peace, not its preservation.
If the press cannot tell the difference between peace and propaganda, then we are not only at war abroad—we are losing the battle for reality at home.
Comments