What Trump’s wartime threats actually reveal about his biggest weakness: defense expert

U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. April 1, 2026. Alex Brandon/Pool via REUTERS

When U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Age where they belong," some right-wing media figures applauded him as a fearless leader who is unwavering in his ability to stand up for American interests. Trump, they claimed, is demonstrating that he doesn't back down when it comes to standing up for what he believes in.

But journalist Robert Fox, in an article published by the UK-based i Paper on April 3, argues that Trump's "Stone Age" rhetoric shows weakness — not strength.

Fox, known for his extensive work as a war correspondent, notes that U.S. Army Gen. Curtis LeMay used similar rhetoric during the Vietnam War.

LeMay's comment drew a lot of criticism. But the general, during an October 1968 interview, told the Washington Post, "I never said we should bomb them back to the Stone Age. I said we had the capability to do it. I want to save lives on both sides."

Trump's "Stone Age" comment, Fox emphasizes, doesn't erase the fact that the war in Iran is going badly.

"Trump really should be carrying out an urgent exercise in damage limitation, rather than making vague threats about doubling down and expanding the war," Fox writes. "Operation Epic Fury now seems caught in mission creep — which bedeviled the US effort in Vietnam from 1963 to 1975, as well as the U.S.-led adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan in this century…. We are at a hinge point, not only for the Middle East and the energy-based global economy, but for America's international standing, credibility and effectiveness…. The role of America and NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is now in question."

Fox adds, "Hours before the speech, Trump told The Daily Telegraph that he was thinking of pulling the U.S. out of NATO."

Leaving NATO, according to Fox, is the last thing Trump should think about doing during wartime.

"It was a typical piece of Trump hubris," Fox writes. "It would take longer than he has left in the White House to wind up the treaty arrangements with NATO laid down in 1949 — assuming, that is, he could get two-thirds of Congress to approve of his action. Quitting NATO weakens the U.S. militarily — the allies' exchange of expertise in tactics and deep research, and not least the huge market for U.S. arms sales, are a net force multiplier — as most U.S. commanders readily admit."

Fox continues, "America and Israel are in real difficulty. Stocks of key missile defense munitions for the Patriot and Iron Dome batteries are running down fast. Bad decisions about the deployment of Marines and paratroopers could invite disaster. ... The big takeaway from the latest Trump bluster blizzard is the trust deficit in America's mercurial commander-in-chief. He cannot be taken at his word, either by friend or foe."

From Your Site Articles