Letโs not beat around the bush: as a speechwriter at the highest levels of politics and business for 45 years โ including the most successful presidential campaign in history โ this commentator can present you an undeniable truth.
President Donald J. Trumpโs remarks Saturday night in the wake of Americaโs โspectacular military successโ striking Iranโs key nuclear facilities didnโt necessarily amount to an oration for the ages. But they did showcase a heroic man rising to a historic moment โ and then some โ with a pithy, powerful and pointed address.
Pithy:ย Your correspondent has in the pastย agonizedย over 45โs โevery-which-way riff-apaloozasโ and penchant for โdetours and traveloguesโ in which he โdouble-covers every subject and theme.โ
Not this time. With a declaration weighing in at a trim three minutes, 19 seconds, Trump didnโt waste one of his mere 525 words. He leaped into his literally earthshaking news, stating the clear objective of the attack โ โthe destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror.โย
And then immediately and forcefully โpre-buttedโ any doubts about the achievement of that objective with a stout insistence that the pariah stateโs โkey nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.โ
The commander in chief crisply moved into a convincing and compelling defense of the actions he had ordered and graciously thanked the team that carried them out โ including his Israeli partners, the โgreat American patriotsโ of the U.S. military and their leaders. Then segued smoothly into a plea for peace and a sharply, shockingly straightforward statement โ given the namby-pamby double-speak in which matters of diplomacy are usually expressed โ of the consequences should Iran not respond to his overture.
Powerful:ย It isnโt often that the words โmassiveโ and โprecisionโ are combined in the same description of military action. But Trumpโs language throughout his brief declamation carried an oratorical impact as forceful as the 30,000-pound โbunker bustersโ reportedly delivered with extraordinary and deadly accuracy against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
The Donald denounced the โhorribly destructive enterpriseโ of the โbully of the Middle East.โ Described arms and legs being blown off and the deaths of โhundreds of thousandsโ as โa direct result of their hateโ โ in essence justifying the intervention not only as a defensive measure, but as deserved and overdue payback for decades of plotting, direction, financing and implementation of agitation and violence against America, its interests and its allies.ย
In the most characteristically Trumpian phrasing of the evening, offered a no-brag-just-fact boast that โ(t)here is no military in the world that could have done what we did tonight. Not even close.โ Which lent additional emphasis, as if any was needed, to his highlighting of the โprecision, speed and skillโ with which the U.S. zeroed in on the โmany targets leftโ after these sorties.ย
Pointed.ย In fact, the most powerful aspect of 47โs appearance was the unmistakable messages he delivered both to the surely shell-shocked Iranian leadership and the global community, and opponents of U.S. military involvement in countering that threat, including outright deniers of that threat in his own MAGA base.
Itโs hard to miss the meaning of avowals such as โfuture attacks will be far greater and a lot easierโ if Iran does not โmake peace,โ not to mention that failure to choose that path will result in โtragedy โฆ far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.โ But if those threats werenโt clear and ominous enough, Trump threw in a reference to the first-term hit he ordered on the leader of the Revolutionary Guardโs Quds brute squad, Qasem Soleimani, as a reminder of Iranian leadershipโs personal peril should it not bend to his will.
The presidentโs effusive praise of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and their cooperation โ(l)ike perhaps no team has ever worked beforeโ to go โa long way to erasing this horrible threatโ to the Jewish nation left little to no daylight between the U.S. and its most important ally โ in sharp contrast to his befuddled predecessor.
Plus his recitation of Iranโs past behavior and the clear rationale for action โ and his political bravery in taking that action โ laid bare the spineless and senseless nature of the opposition of both the Democratsโ radical progressive wing and MAGAโs manic isolationists.
And speaking of no daylight โ the president ensured that his key national security players, including Vice President J.D. Vance, were literally behind him in announcing this momentous step in modern U.S. โgunship diplomacy.โ Not pictured: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, still likely sporting the black eye received when her boss dismissed her assessments of Iranโs progress toward the bomb as โwrong.โ
PS: Not since Ronald Reagan closed his 1980 nomination acceptance with the shy averment that he was โafraid not toโ ask for a moment of silent prayer has a national leader so publicly and profoundly expressed gratitude to, love for and dependence on the Almighty for his providence and protection.
“God bless Israel, and God bless America,โ indeed. And for his audacious actions and awe-inspiring words, God bless Donald Trump.
Bob Maistros, a regular contributor to Issues & Insights, is a messaging and communications strategist, crisis specialist, and former political speechwriter. He can be reached atย bob@rpmexecutive.com.
Views expressed by guest contributors to Issues & Insights are their own and donโt necessarily reflect the views of the I&I Editorial Board.




Still waiting for proof the strikes worked.
Thank you Bob Maistros for your wonderful essay and fine explanatory critique. But first, why does anyone including you it seems have to have a disclaimer any and every single time when praising President Donald J. Trump. Why insert the phrase that his speech “didnโt necessarily amount to an oration for the ages,” when it was not meant to be oratory. There are several other definitions of what the speech was meant to be and that includes a list of informative directives and acknowledgements. So why throw in that disclaimer? I suppose that even you don’t want to have on record your full and complete support for anything President Trump does or says, even when powerful and excellent. Why don’t people have more confidence when something good is presented. If one were going to knit-pic it would be to make a specific and particular list of all the areas Trump covered one by one and then knit them into the overall and powerful message rather than “pic” out something which was not there.