The Myth of the Mastermind

By Mohamad Hammoud

President Trump’s self-aggrandizing claims in the Middle East spotlight controversy and exaggeration

In a wide-ranging interview with TIME magazine on October 23, 2025, President Donald Trump delivered a sweeping, self-congratulatory account of his role in shaping the Middle East. The interview read less like a policy discussion and more like a personal myth, with Trump portraying himself as the lone architect of regional peace. He claimed direct command over “Israel’s” covert pager and walkie-talkie strikes on Hezbollah, saying the operation “was done under my auspices … with me directly,” and that “‘Israel’ let me know everything. And sometimes I’d say no, and they’d be respectful of that.”

In reality, independent reporting shows the attacks were planned and executed during the Biden administration, with no involvement from President Trump.

Trump also claimed that the Gaza ceasefire depended on his earlier alleged strikes on Iran, declaring, “I stopped [‘Israeli’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] … it would have gone on for years.” He suggested Arab states would not have joined the accord without the “cloud of a nuclear weapon dropping on their head,” insisting Iran’s nuclear program was “seriously knocked out” in what he described as a “flawless attack.”

In the same interview, Trump went further—warning that any move by “Israel” to annex the West Bank would result in the loss of full US support. “It won’t happen,” he said, “because I gave my word to the Arab countries … ‘Israel’ would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.” The statement was unprecedented for an American president, and especially striking coming from Trump, who had long been seen as one of the most submissive to “Israeli” interests.

Bold claims versus available evidence

The President’s recounting of Iran strikes and Gaza diplomacy amplifies his influence far beyond verified facts. He said he “went in and knocked out their nuclear potential … it was complete obliteration.” Yet, CNN and NBC reported that Iran’s enrichment capacity remains largely intact, and independent verification of such destruction is absent. Likewise, his assertion that Hezbollah’s leadership was “decimated” under his direct command lacks confirmation. Analysts at the Atlantic Council note that Hezbollah remains a potent actor, challenging Trump’s depiction of decisive military impact.

Trump’s claims of directing “‘Israel’s’” sensitive operations—down to the timing and technology used in cyber and electronic attacks—portray him as the de facto commander of a sovereign, allied military, an extraordinary assertion absent corroboration. His rhetoric positions him not merely as a diplomatic partner but as the central figure in regional security, an image that conflicts with documented military and diplomatic norms.

Inflated narratives and the coercive negotiator

Beyond military feats, Trump cast his diplomacy as coercive yet indispensable. He insisted he “stopped” Netanyahu from continuing Gaza operations, warning that the world would not tolerate prolonged conflict. He also claimed that Hamas faced the threat of “complete obliteration,” implying that his personal leverage alone compelled parties into a settlement. The result, in his telling, was a peace accord dependent less on negotiation than on his capacity to threaten, influence and intimidate regional actors.

Trump further tied the region’s stability to his personal authority, suggesting that if “a bad president comes in” lacking his perceived respect from Saudi Arabia or Qatar, the new peace could unravel. The interview thus read like a reflective essay on a singular, force-driven approach to foreign policy, in which diplomatic progress is framed as a consequence of personal might rather than multilateral negotiation.

The power and peril of exaggeration

Trump’s self-portrayal as architect, executor, and enforcer of Middle Eastern outcomes blurs the line between rhetoric and reality. At home, it bolsters his strongman image; abroad, it risks misleading allies, inflating expectations, and diminishing the autonomy of “Israel”, Iran and other regional powers. By claiming direct operational control and overstating military successes, he turns complex diplomacy into personal mythology, potentially skewing strategic judgment. Allies may overestimate US influence, adversaries may misread intentions and the public may struggle to separate political theater from fact.

Looking ahead

Whether future outcomes in Gaza, Iran or Hezbollah validate Trump’s claims or reveal exaggeration, the TIME interview stands as a blueprint of his self-perceived legacy. From the Gaza ceasefire to Iranian nuclear threats, he positioned himself as the decisive force behind every success, creating a narrative in which diplomacy is a byproduct of personal and military dominance. The credibility of this account will be tested as the region evolves, highlighting the tension between presidential narrative and operational reality—a gap with consequences both domestic and international.