President Trump posted on Truth Social that America knows exactly where Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is hiding, calling him an "easy target" but stating the US won't "take him out (kill!), at least not for now." The post warns against missiles targeting civilians or American soldiers, saying "our patience is wearing thin" amid the escalating Israel-Iran conflict.
- Public Intelligence Disclosure: Trump revealed US knowledge of Khamenei's exact location on a social media platform
- Conditional Restraint: Explicitly stated intention not to kill Iranian leader "at least not for now"
- Escalation Warning: Warned patience wearing thin over missile attacks on civilians and American soldiers
- Strategic Messaging: Post viewed 5.9M times, generating significant international attention and responses
Even Trump supporters express alarm when presidents boast about targeting foreign leaders on social media. The post's casualness about assassination capabilities - "we know exactly where," "easy target," "kill!" - crossed lines that make allies uncomfortable.
The counter-intuitive reaction: restraint announcements can be more disturbing than direct threats. Public intelligence disclosure about elimination capabilities sounds reckless rather than measured, even to supporters. Comments like "Someone take away the Orange Man's phone" reflect bipartisan unease.
For global audiences, this demonstrates how casual language about state violence alarms even political allies, revealing limits of what supporters will defend when leaders overshare operational capabilities.
Should presidents publicly discuss assassination capabilities even when promising restraint? How do supporters balance loyalty with concern over leaders' casual language about state violence?
Sources: Truth Social, TIME, Washington Post, CNN, Reuters, Algemeiner
