Week of April 9, 2026

From the editor’s desk

Talk about anxiety-producing!

I’m guessing I’m not the only one who had a pit in their stomach for two days earlier this week. The president’s Easter Sunday social media post—complete with flourishes like the now-practically requisite f-word and swipe at Islam—threatened to bomb Iran’s bridges and power plants if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz by Tuesday evening. Later, his words were even more sinister: “A whole civilization will die tonight.”

Would he actually make good on the threat? 

I remember the conclusion that some reporters drew during the 2020 election coverage, when media outlets like NPR were still making a sincere effort to articulate Trump voters’ reasons for their fervent allegiance. I’m paraphrasing, but it was something like this: “Liberals, you don’t get it. You’re making the mistake of taking Trump’s word literally but not seriously, whereas his base understands that he’s to be taken seriously but not literally.”

Personally, I would prefer a president who clearly says what he means, but also, I try not to rush to conclude that the sky is falling with Trump’s every post. And I’m doing a pretty good job not catapulting myself into a fit of outrage with his every insult, bluff or lie.

But also: Trump does indeed make good on his threats, even some of his incredibly destructive ones. And he did tell The New York Times that he doesn’t need international law, as his own morality is a sufficient guardrail.

Were we supposed to take his threat to Iranian civilization literally? Take it figuratively? I withdrew my hat from that ring a long time ago. You really never know with this guy. From Sunday through Tuesday evening, I divided my time between:

1. Fearing the worst

2. Guessing it was probably bluster

3. Thinking of Iranian friends, acquaintances and community members in the U.S. who are worried for their families back home—and largely unable to communicate with them given ongoing internet blackouts that started long before this war broke out

4. Trying to get my head around the incalculable damage to our nation’s credibility that these threats are causing. As you can imagine, news outlets like The Independent and The Hill have discussed the U.S.’s plummeting credibility in recent days. So has the right-leaning Wall Street Journal.

5. Absorbing the reality that even much of the far-right-fringe is criticizing this war and Trump’s destructiveness. Lord help me, I never expected to live to see the day Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones talked sense.

In any case, here’s what Trump’s threats looked like to someone who knows vastly more about military strategy than I do: On yesterday’s BBC Newshour, host Tim Franks interviewed Elliott Abrams, former special envoy during the first Trump administration and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Abrams apparently did not spend his last few days anxiously wondering whether Trump would obliterate Iran. (The interview starts at minute 34:45 of this broadcast, and this exchange starts at 41:10.)

Franks: What was your thought this time yesterday when you heard the president give his warning that Iran’s civilization was about to die, that he was going to be hitting every single power plant, every single bridge inside Iran?

Abrams: My thought was that he would never do it. That, like many of his remarks, it was meant for effect, and that it was meant to scare the Iranians into a ceasefire. It may have worked, actually.

But don’t rush to any conclusions that Abrams thought the threat of genocide was a great idea. 

Franks: Doesn’t it debase the American presidency? 

Abrams: I think it does debase the presidency. I think, for example, to use foul, four letter words in a public message on Easter Sunday debases him and debases the presidency.

That’s where the conversation between Franks and Abrams ended. If it leaves you wondering about whether to take Trump’s words literally or figuratively, well, legal experts’ takes may leave you wondering still. Some say the threats themselves are clearly war crimes. Others say they’re not. Politico posted a great explainer on that today.

Take care,

—Kris Vagner, managing editor