Trump's ‘Obliterated' Claim on Iran Just Became His Latest Meme Disaster
In his June 21 televised address from the White House, President Donald Trump declared that the U.S. had 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program following airstrikes on three of its nuclear sites. The word was meant to project power, certainty, and victory. Instead, it has gone viral for all the wrong reasons.
Within days, 'obliterated' morphed into an online punchline, mocked by critics and meme-makers across social media platforms. It has become the latest in a long line of Trumpian catchphrases to implode under scrutiny.
The backlash began after CNN and The New York Times published reports citing a preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment that contradicted Trump's triumphant rhetoric. According to the leaked findings from the Defense Intelligence Agency, the U.S. strikes only delayed Iran's nuclear ambitions by a few months. They did not destroy the program.
That nuance has unleashed a storm of online sarcasm.
'Our next strike will be even more obliterating,' one user posted on X.
Our next strike will be even more obliterating pic.twitter.com/YrHpnQvqeA
— Pwease (@PweaseToken) June 26, 2025
'The only thing that was 'totally obliterated' was Trump's credibility,' another chimed in.
The ONLY thing that was "totally obliterated" in this Iran bombing fiasco was trump's credibility.
He started a fake war so he could end it.After he said "no new wars."
He's a total fraud.
— BrooklynDad_Defiant!☮️ (@mmpadellan) June 25, 2025
Others used the term to highlight Trump's shaky record with facts: 'Americans who believe the world's most documented liar's claim that Iran's nuclear program was 'completely and totally obliterated' are still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall,' one user posted.
Americans who believe the world's most documented liar's claim that Iran's nuclear program was "completely and totally obliterated" are still waiting for Mexico to pay for a wall. https://t.co/2dru6S9uZx pic.twitter.com/1i0icPo5eb
— Mindcite💥 (@Mindcite_US) June 22, 2025
Another mocked the drama of it all: 'This movie is a must-watch: Obliterated 🔥🔥🔥'
This movie is a must watch, Obliterated🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/zCIYB88syQ
— Elianna (@Elianna_JE) June 23, 2025
Trump responded to the media reports with fury. On June 26, he took to Truth Social to denounce CNN and The New York Times, demanding that their reporters be 'fired immediately.' In all-caps, he accused them of being 'bad people with evil intentions' and even hinted at legal action.
In a formal letter to The New York Times, Trump's attorney Alejandro Brito called the article 'false,' 'defamatory,' and 'unpatriotic,' demanding a retraction and apology for what Trump claims has 'damaged his reputation.' Both CNN and The Times stand by their reporting.
On the same day, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth defended Trump's narrative, calling the strikes a 'historic success' and downplaying the intelligence report. But Hegseth's comments only fueled the skepticism online, particularly after he admitted the U.S. intelligence community 'doesn't know the extent of the damage,' while simultaneously claiming total destruction.
'How does that work exactly?' asked one user.
Hegseth just said the intelligence community doesn't know the extent of the damage that was done in Iran, but the Trump administration KNOWS that we 'totally obliterated' them.
How does that work exactly?
— Jo (@JoJoFromJerz) June 25, 2025The backlash follows a well-worn pattern in Trump's political playbook: make a bold claim, double down, attack the press, and accuse critics of sabotage. But in this case, the weight of evidence and the speed of the internet are turning his favorite word into a PR disaster.
Trump has continued to share supportive messages on Truth Social praising the bombing campaign and suggesting he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, his administration appears to be sticking with the 'obliterated' narrative, even as doubts mount.
Iran, for its part, acknowledged the damage. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the strikes as 'significant,' though not terminal. Speaking on Iranian state television, he said that experts were conducting a full assessment and that reparations would be sought. 'The discussion to demand reparations for the damage caused is now high on the government's agenda,' he said.
The June 21 U.S. airstrikes were a response to escalating tensions following Israel's June 12 bombing of Iranian sites. Trump framed the strikes as a necessary show of strength, warning that further attacks could follow. Yet his choice of words—'obliterated'—is now shaping the post-bombing narrative more than the military action itself.
Like 'covfefe,' 'hamberders,' and 'very stable genius' before it, 'obliterated' has entered the Trumpian lexicon of viral absurdity, only this time, it's about war, not fast food.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
33 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Environmentalists sue to stop opening of ‘Alligator Alcatraz' in Everglades
Two environmental groups on Friday sued to halt the construction of an immigrant detention center in the middle of the Everglades, arguing the state had ignored required ecological reviews. Florida officials have said that they plan to open the facility, nicknamed 'Alligator Alcatraz' by Republicans, as early next week and that it would hold up to 3,000 detainees.
Wall Street Journal
34 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Bessent: Some Trading Partners Could Get July 9 Extension on Tariffs
Some major U.S. trading partners may be given extensions on the July 9 deadline before the Trump administration imposes its steep, so-called reciprocal tariffs, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday. Others could see their tariffs increase on or around that day, he said. 'There will be a group of deals that we will land before July 9—on or about [that date],' Bessent said on CNBC. 'And then there are probably another 20 countries that could go back to the reciprocal tariff of April 2 as we work on the deal, or if we think they are negotiating in good faith, they could stay at the 10% baseline." Additionally, other 'smaller trading partners,' Bessent said, will simply receive letters outlining the level of tariffs that they will pay.
Associated Press
34 minutes ago
- Associated Press
In their own words: What justices, Trump and groups say about courts and birthright citizenship
At the Supreme Court Friday, justices lambasted one another over the extent of judicial authority. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused President Donald Trump of trying to game the courts to break the law. The president expressed joy in reclaiming some power back from the judiciary, while advocates sounded worries for immigrant families before filing new legal challenges. The high court ruled that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Here are some of the arguments and comments made by justices, Trump and advocates regarding the court's 6-3 ruling over an effort by the president to deny birthright citizenship to children born to immigrants. Barrett, Jackson on the judiciary's role Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the majority opinion that the judiciary does not have 'unbridled authority' to enforce the president's duty to follow the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Sotomayor's dissent, wrote that the role of lower courts should ensure that. 'For that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,' Jackson wrote. Barrett called Jackson's arguments 'extreme' and said her reasoning was not tethered 'to any doctrine whatsoever.' 'She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' Barrett wrote. She later stated: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Sotomayor accuses Trump of 'gamesmanship' Sotomayor did not mince words when arguing the ruling presents a threat. She accused the Trump administration of using tactics to game the courts and said it has been defying the Constitution. 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it,' she wrote. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.' Sotomayor also wrote that Trump's order is 'patently unconstitutional under settled law,' and argued that granting relief through Friday's decision 'is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.' 'The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort,' she wrote. A warning about what may be next Sotomayor expressed worries about the chaos that may follow before the Supreme Court gets to decide on whether these children should get U.S. citizenship. She worried about the decision leaving some children 'stateless,' risking deportation even when their parents are in the country legally with temporary status visas or other programs. Sotomayor also warned about the possible wider impact of the ruling. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' she wrote. Trump celebrates Trump, meanwhile, quickly celebrated the ruling, calling it a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law. 'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump told reporters during a news conference in the White House briefing room. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' The president said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by lower courts. Immigrant rights group responds One of the groups that challenged Trump's order quickly went back to court seeking to keep his new restrictions on birthright citizenship at bay. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization, asked a federal court in Maryland to certify a class-action lawsuit that would represent all newborns who would no longer automatically be citizens if Trump's order goes into effect. 'Scotus has carelessly put at risk the citizenship of many hundreds of thousands of newborns and yet to be born innocent. But in the end, this ruling does nothing more than guarantee that the fight and the movement towards justice continue,' said George Escobar, CASA's chief of programs and services.
