Body language expert breaks down Donald Trump's ominous speech after bombing Iran nuclear sites

News.com.au

24-06-2025

Donald Trump has never been one for following the script.
But he has arguably never had to own up to something so consequential during his time leading the US.
The true consequences of the US intervention in the current conflict between Iran and Israel, which ultimately led to the destruction of multiple nuclear sites over the weekend, are yet to truly reveal themselves.
In the days leading up to the White House's decision to unleash stealth bombers armed with bunker busters on Iran, analysts were screaming to the hills about the uncontrollable butterfly effect that would follow.
Iran, while weakened, has a few aces up its sleeve. One of them being the cutting off of a crucial maritime trade route that provides the globe with approximately 20 per cent of its fuel.
Others warned the attack would embolden Iran's already anti-US allies into providing the nation, now on the back foot, with whatever it needs to counter-attack. That includes several Middle Eastern militias, some of which have already threatened the US of attacks on its bases in the region should Trump target Iran.
Whatever the case, it was crystal clear Trump was a different man when announcing the handiwork of America's B-2 stealth bombers to the world.
As he strode to the panel with his four horsemen to announce what had occurred, the usually brash 79-year-old appeared robotic.
The uncharacteristically disciplined performance had even his closest allies watching him like a hawk.
Mark Carter, an expert in human behaviour and body language, dissected the performance and told news.com.au that Trump 'remained on a scripted, specific message, showing more self-control than he would normally demonstrate.'
For a man known for improvisational tangents and hurling rhetorical bombs, the display was, in Carter's view, unusually restrained.
'Since winning the Presidency, Trump has shown an attitude of someone who could not care less what his scriptwriters write,' Carter said in a statement provided to news.com.au.
'He remains far more focused here. The staged entrance, the staged exit, and the mainly planned scripted segment in between.'
The tension in the room was palpable, especially from Vice President JD Vance, a man who helped Trump get over the line last November, often attacking the Democrats for their alleged enthusiasm for war.
'You could see in the side-eye look at Trump at times by US Vice President JD Vance that there was concern that his Commander in Chief may head off on his own track. There was clear relief by those at his side that he did not,' Carter continued.
'The Vance-Trump relationship is one of convenience in many ways. Vance was extremely critical of Trump until a marriage of convenience emerged.'
That uneasy alliance, Carter suggests, continues to manifest in 'a lack of congruence in Vance's body language versus the words he speaks'.
During the address, as Trump launched into visceral imagery of Iranian-backed terror, Vance's discomfort was painted across his face and his subconscious actions, Carter claims.
'Holding his hands clenched forward, Vance kept an almost constant side gaze on the President, which intensified as Trump stepped into rhetoric around Iran's support of terror,' Carter said.
'Vance instead showed a curiously puzzled look, projecting a sense of 'what are you on about Mr President.''
The contrast with other Cabinet members was clear as day as the other two cut a more sycophantic figure.
'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth stared blankly forward, head nodding hypnotically to Trump's words,' Carter said.
While Trump delivered the message largely as planned, Carter's reading of the stage suggests the subtext was more chaotic.
'Even for the 'yes' people that Trump has surrounded himself with in this administration, there are serious scenarios, such as the use of US military force, where even these 'yes' people recognise the importance of remaining on message,' Carter continued.
The performance may have gone off without a verbal hitch. But judging by the unease around him, Trump's team knew just how fragile that calm was.
Trump losing key supporters over Iran escalation
The unease is part of a broader fracturing of Trump's vast supporter base.
For the libertarian and former Democrat wing of Trump's voter base – even some of those who have forever stood staunchly behind the billionaire – his actions over the weekend were viewed as unforgivable.
Optimists saw him as a rejection of the past, but as each day passes, the Republican Party's old colours are shining through.
After promising to clean up bloated bureaucracy and partially withdraw America from 'wasteful' overseas aid, some believe Trump has now taken the Iran fiasco to dangerous new heights.
For the libertarian and former Democrat wing of Trump's voter base – even some of those who have forever stood staunchly behind the billionaire – this messaging was seen as poison.
Optimists saw him as a rejection of the past, but as each day passes, the Republican Party's old colours are shining through.
After promising to clean up bloated bureaucracy and partially withdraw America from 'wasteful' overseas aid, some believe Trump has now taken the Iran fiasco to dangerous new heights.
Last week, when arguments were raging over the potential for US involvement, the President lashed out at Tucker Carlson for his vocal opposition to yet another war with nations a world away.
The anti-war wing of America who stood behind Trump as America's 'solution' is now coming to terms with the current crisis and what it could mean for the future.
'While the American military may not have physically perpetrated the assault, years of funding and sending weapons to Israel … place the US at the centre,' Carlson said, doubling down on his criticism by blasting prominent conservative figures like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin as 'warmongers' for urging direct US intervention.
Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of The Federalist, warned that giving a 'green light' to Iran strikes would be 'an unforgivable betrayal by millions of American voters' and a 'strategic policy mistake'.