TEHRAN - President Donald Trump has resorted to psychological warfare, seeking to mask the growing strategic and political costs of the US-Israel war against Iran that began on February 28. 

He has repeatedly portrayed Iran as internally divided in an effort to project instability inside the country rather than confront stalled negotiations, rising regional escalation, and growing domestic backlash inside the United States.

On Thursday, Trump claimed that Iranians are “having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is,” alleging “crazy” infighting between “moderates” and “hardliners.” This comes amid a fragile ceasefire extension following the collapse of Islamabad talks and the imposition of a US naval blockade on Iranian ports. Those negotiations, held two days after the announcement of the two-week ceasefire on April 8, broke down over what Iran described as “excessive and unrealistic” US demands, with Tehran insisting that lifting the siege is a precondition for any renewed diplomacy.

Following Trump’s Thursday allegations, President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, and Judiciary Chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei issued identical statements emphasizing national unity. The message stated: “In Iran, there are no ‘hardliners’ or ‘moderates.’ We are all Iranians and revolutionaries. With ironclad unity of nation and state and obedience to the Supreme Leader, we will make the aggressor regret. One God, one nation, one leader, one path; victory for Iran, dearer than life.”

Other senior Iranian officials and lawmakers posted similar messages. Iranian military officials, including senior commanders of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), also followed suit with identical messaging. In a post on X, Brigadier General Mohammad Karami, commander of the IRGC Ground Forces, said the Iranian people, government, and armed forces have stood against adversaries with cohesion and unity.

Trump’s narrative of internal division can be understood as part of a PR stunt rather than a literal assessment of political reality. These six points further show how Trump’s framing reflects broader war pressures and miscalculations rather than reality in Iran.

1. War justification gap
Trump’s claim of Iranian internal division functions as a justification for the war that began on February 28, which has not delivered decisive political or military outcomes for his administration. Despite airstrikes, sanctions, assassinations, and a naval blockade, Iran has not fractured or conceded. The division framing helps present continued escalation.

2. Diplomatic cover-up
Following the collapse of the Islamabad negotiations, Trump’s narrative shifts attention away from diplomatic failure. The talks broke down over maximalist US demands. Fresh talks have also been in a limbo due to the US maritime pressure linked to the blockade, not Iranian internal dysfunction. The division narrative attempts to reframe a negotiation breakdown as Iranian incoherence rather than strategic disagreement.

3. Wartime resilience
The assumption of internal Iranian division contrasts with historical and recent patterns of cohesion under pressure. During the Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s, Iran maintained institutional unity despite extreme wartime conditions. More recently, in the 12-day war in June last year, Iranian political and military institutions remained stable under external strikes. In the current war, coordinated messaging across the political leadership and IRGC structures reinforces continuity rather than fragmentation.

4. Domestic pressure
The war is increasingly unpopular in the United States, with multiple polls showing a majority disapproval of its handling and growing concern over rising energy costs and economic consequences. Reports also indicate declining approval of war management. With an authorization window for military action without explicit congressional approval expiring soon, the division's narrative helps sustain political justification for continued escalation.

5. Deadline credibility
Repeated extensions of ceasefire windows and shifting deadlines for Iranian compliance have weakened coercive credibility. The claim of internal Iranian division helps explain why repeated final deadlines are delayed or revised, shifting attention away from strategic limits in US policy implementation.

6. Cohesion misread
The belief that sustained pressure produces fragmentation overlooks wartime behavior patterns in centralized states. Iran’s security and political structures tend to consolidate under external threat rather than fragment. Meanwhile, Iran continues to exercise leverage through the Strait of Hormuz and maritime disruption, indicating adaptation and resilience rather than internal breakdown.

Nearly two months after the war began, continued public presence in Iranian cities and sustained expressions of support for the Islamic Republic reflect an ongoing societal cohesion despite external pressure. This visible stability on the ground contrasts with narratives of internal division, underscoring a persistent gap between political framing and lived realities