How Trump’s posts fuel crises

The conduct of modern warfare and diplomacy has traditionally followed a measured script which is carefully worded briefings, coordinated messaging, and discreet backchannel negotiations. But under United States President Donald Trump, that script appears to have been overturned. As the United States navigates heightened tensions in the Middle East, particularly around Iran — Trump has […]

The conduct of modern warfare and diplomacy has traditionally followed a measured script which is carefully worded briefings, coordinated messaging, and discreet backchannel negotiations. But under United States President Donald Trump, that script appears to have been overturned.

As the United States navigates heightened tensions in the Middle East, particularly around Iran — Trump has turned social media, especially Truth Social, into a primary instrument of statecraft. In doing so, Trump has not only reshaped how conflicts are communicated but also influenced how global markets, allies and adversaries respond in real time.

From announcing US/Israel initial military actions to issuing threats and hinting at peace deals, Trump’s posts have increasingly blurred the line between official policy and personal commentary, often with far-reaching consequences not only in the warring parties’ territories.

 

A new theatre of war communication

Since the outbreak of hostilities on February 28, available data showed that Trump has posted more than 200 times on Truth Social, with roughly 90 of those directly addressing the Iran conflict. In the first week alone, he issued over 40 posts — an intense barrage of messages declaring military success and warning Tehran of dire consequences.

This early “information blitz” gradually diminished from about 25 posts in the second week, 15 in the third, and fewer thereafter, as attention shifted back to domestic politics. Still, the initial surge set the tone, fast-paced, personal and often unfiltered.

Analysts say this pattern by Trump represents an unprecedented moment in global politics with a sitting U.S. president publicly narrating war strategy in real time, sometimes ahead of official channels. In several instances, lawmakers and even government officials reportedly learned of military actions through Trump’s posts rather than formal briefings.

The implications are significant. Diplomatic processes, which rely heavily on discretion and timing, have struggled to keep pace with a communication style that prioritises immediacy over caution.

 

White House messaging gap

Trump’s dominance of the communication space has also reshaped the role of official spokespersons, particularly his appointed White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt.

Documented briefings show that Leavitt has addressed the press corps on the Iran war only a handful of times this year, at least three — suggesting a communication structure in which formal channels play a secondary role to the president’s direct messaging.

On March 10, she delivered a televised briefing highlighting US military dominance in Iranian airspace and outlining operational priorities. Weeks later, on March 30, she drew attention for framing the conflict in religious terms while defending Trump’s threats against Tehran, suggesting a four-to-six-week timeline for escalation.

Most recently, in late April, Leavitt spoke outside the White House on the extension of a ceasefire and the continuation of a naval blockade under what officials described as “Operation Economic Fury,” emphasising the administration’s intent to economically pressure Iran.

Taken together, these briefings project a consistent message of strength, blending military, diplomatic and economic signalling.

However, the relatively limited number of official engagements, compared to the volume and immediacy of Trump’s social media posts highlights a widening gap between institutional communication and the president’s personal, real-time narrative of the war.

 

Markets on edge

Beyond diplomacy, Trump’s social media activity has had measurable economic consequences.

Each post, particularly those threatening escalation or announcing military moves has tended to trigger immediate reactions in global markets. Oil prices have surged on the back of perceived risks to supply routes, especially around the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s crude passes.

Stock markets across Asia, Europe and the United States have similarly experienced volatility, with investors reacting to sudden shifts in tone from aggressive threats to conciliatory remarks.

Trump’s pattern has contributed to sustained uncertainty in energy markets, with ripple effects on inflation and food prices globally. Higher fuel costs increase transportation and production expenses, which in turn drive up the cost of essential goods.

The result is a feedback loop: geopolitical tension fuels market instability, which exacerbates economic hardship particularly in import-dependent economies.

 

Diplomacy in the spotlight

Perhaps the most delicate impact of Trump’s approach has been on diplomacy itself.

Reports indicate that backchannel negotiations between the US and Iran had, at one point, brought both sides close to a framework agreement to end the conflict. However, public statements by Trump – including claims of sweeping concessions may have disrupted the fragile momentum.

Diplomatic insiders warn that such disclosures can harden positions, embarrass negotiating partners, and ultimately derail progress. In high-stakes talks, timing and confidentiality are often as critical as substance.

By contrast, Trump’s approach has made negotiations more visible yet also more volatile.

 

Diplomat’s perspective: ‘A one-man show’

For Nigeria’s former ambassador to Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan and Pakistan, Suleiman Dahiru, the implications are deeply troubling.

“Donald Trump appears to be a very confused person. He doesn’t know exactly the direction he is taking,” he said.

According to Dahiru, Trump’s reliance on personal messaging reflects a breakdown in institutional communication.

“Number one, you have to understand one thing. Donald Trump is a lone ranger. He does whatever he feels like doing because he feels that he has the power to do whatever he wants to do. Instead of now allowing officials to be making comments, he is the one on a daily basis issuing statements on his social media.”

He described the situation as highly unusual, particularly in the context of war.

“If it is a war issue, statements should come from the Ministry of Defence and if it is a diplomatic or international affair, he has not allowed the foreign ministry to function the way it should function.”

Dahiru argued that this centralisation of communication has broader consequences for global stability and America’s standing.

“So, he is running a one-man show and that one-man show has brought so much disrespect to America. The world is in turmoil, economically because of the decision of one man.”

He also pointed to the direct link between Trump’s statements and market reactions.

“As you can see, when he makes a positive statement, it reflects in the stock exchanges all over the world. But when he comes with another statement, the stock exchanges crash and the prices of petroleum products rise up.”

The former envoy further noted that Trump’s rhetoric has strained alliances, particularly with European partners and NATO, complicating coordinated responses to the crisis.

 

Journalist’s perspective: ‘When Trump sneezes…’

Public affairs analyst and broadcaster Ben Shamang offered a layered analysis centered on how perception shapes influence.

“Honestly, Donald Trump is a man that will say he’s in charge in his own opinion, he’s in charge of the world,” he said.

Shamang noted that Trump’s messaging often shapes how conflicts are understood globally, even when its accuracy is debated.

“There are times he would say something and you just see that it has not come out to be really so, so that’s why sometimes some people would take his words with a pinch of salt.”

Yet, despite questions about credibility, the impact remains undeniable.

“On a daily basis, people always want to follow Trump to see what he’s up to he’s always controlling millions of followers. And of course, that influences quite a lot of things.”

On the economic front, Shamang offered a clear parallel. “It’s like when Trump sneezes, the world must catch a cold.”

He pointed to the Strait of Hormuz as a key pressure point.

“When he said there’s going to be a blockade, crude oil prices went so high, there is uncertainty. China is feeling it. Europe is feeling it. India also. Just name it.”

He also highlighted knock-on effects on food security, recalling how past conflicts, especially Russia/Ukraine war disrupted fertiliser supplies and agricultural production.

“Foodstuff, the same thing, recall the war between Russia and Ukraine. Fertiliser didn’t come.”

Shamang further argued that Trump’s distrust of traditional media has reinforced his reliance on social platforms, increasing the risk of misinformation.

“At a point, there could be misinformation, even disinformation. But to him, it is the correct thing to do.”

 

US embassy directs inquiries to White House

Inquiries to the U.S. Embassy about President Trump’s messaging strategy during the ongoing conflict were met with a brief statement.

“The U.S. Embassy works to advance President Trump’s policy goals. Please refer questions on Operation Epic Fury to the White House,” a U.S. Embassy spokesperson said.

The response shows the administration’s preference for centralizing communication through the White House, even as President Trump continues to rely heavily on social media platforms to broadcast his views on the war.

Analysts believe that this direct, often unfiltered use of social media has amplified tensions, fueling diplomatic crises and complicating traditional channels of communication.