In June 2019, U.S. and Israeli military officials reportedly discovered then-President Donald Trump's decision to cancel a planned retaliatory strike against Iran through his social media posts, rather than through official government channels. This account, detailed in a recent book by New York Times journalists Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, highlights an unconventional method of communication for a critical national security decision. The claims suggest the rapid dissemination of information via social media bypassed established military protocols, causing surprise among high-ranking defense personnel.

The planned military action followed Iran's downing of a U.S. Global Hawk surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz on June 20, 2019. The Pentagon had reportedly prepared for strikes against several Iranian targets, including radar and missile batteries. According to the book "The Divider: Trump in the White House 2017-2021," President Trump authorized the strikes but then abruptly reversed his decision just hours before they were to commence. His rationale, articulated via Twitter, cited potential casualties, stating, "150 people would have died. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it."

The book's authors assert that both American and Israeli military forces, already positioned for the operation, were caught off guard by the public announcement. Senior military commanders, including then-Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph Dunford, reportedly learned of the cancellation through news alerts derived from Trump's social media feed. This method of communication reportedly created a chaotic situation, leaving military leaders scrambling to confirm orders and halt preparations that were already in advanced stages. Israeli defense officials, who were reportedly closely coordinating with their U.S. counterparts, also received the information through the same public channels, further underscoring the breakdown in traditional intelligence and operational communication.

The incident, as detailed in the report, highlights several implications for national security communications:

  • Bypassing Traditional Channels: The use of social media for critical military decisions reportedly diverged significantly from established classified communication networks and diplomatic protocols.
  • Information Disparity: Key military and intelligence personnel were reportedly not privy to the decision-making process in real-time, leading to potential operational confusion and risks.
  • Impact on Alliances: Allies, such as Israel, reportedly received crucial updates through public platforms, potentially straining trust and coordination mechanisms in sensitive joint operations.
  • Speed vs. Security: The instantaneous nature of social media provided rapid public dissemination but reportedly sacrificed the controlled and secure communication typically required for military actions.

The revelations from "The Divider" offer a rare glimpse into the internal workings and communication challenges within the Trump administration during moments of heightened international tension. The book details instances where senior officials, including National Security Advisor John Bolton, were reportedly unaware of the President's final decision until it was publicly broadcast. The episode remains a notable example of how technology, particularly social media, influenced presidential communication during a period of significant geopolitical sensitivity, raising questions about information flow in an era of digital diplomacy and rapid news cycles.

The claims from the book continue to be discussed within defense and foreign policy circles, prompting ongoing analysis of command and control structures and the role of public communication in crisis management.