US President鈥檚 remarks spark debate over leadership style and decision-making systems
WASHINGTON, D.C. | President Donald Trump has sparked fresh controversy with his recent profanity-laced comment following the breakdown of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which he had personally brokered just a day earlier.
鈥淲e basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don鈥檛 know what the f*** they鈥檙e doing,鈥 Trump told reporters on June 24, adding, 鈥淚鈥檓 not happy with Israel.鈥
The statement, made without hesitation or apology and followed by Trump walking away visibly angry, raised questions about presidential decorum, diplomacy, and his style of decision-making.
Ceasefire crumbles in 24 hours
Trump鈥檚 remarks came after both Iran and Israel violated the ceasefire within 24 hours of its announcement, leading to renewed tensions in the Middle East. Trump鈥檚 reaction was not simply frustration鈥攊t was an emotional eruption, delivered with stark language uncommon for global statesmen.
His choice of words also contrasts sharply with historical presidential diplomacy. Theodore Roosevelt once advised, 鈥淪peak softly and carry a big stick,鈥 a principle promoting quiet strength, far removed from Trump鈥檚 blunt and combative tone.
Psychological Insights: The frustration-aggression hypothesis
Trump鈥檚 reaction has been linked to a classic psychological theory known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis, developed in the 1930s. The theory suggests that blocked goals lead to frustration, which in turn can lead to aggression.
While modern psychologists now view human behavior as more complex鈥攁cknowledging that most people manage frustration through problem-solving or rational thinking鈥擳rump鈥檚 reaction has renewed interest in the model.
鈥淭rump鈥檚 angry outburst felt primitive, almost textbook in its expression of unchecked frustration,鈥 said Geoff Beattie, a professor of psychology at Edge Hill University.
Kahneman鈥檚 Model: Thinking Fast vs Thinking Slow
Beattie draws on Daniel Kahneman鈥檚 Nobel-winning research, detailed in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, to further explain Trump鈥檚 behaviour.
Kahneman divides human decision-making into two systems:
System 1: Fast, automatic, emotional, and intuitive.System 2: Slow, effortful, rational, and analytical.
In ideal scenarios, System 2 evaluates and moderates the impulses of System 1. However, Beattie suggests that Trump operates primarily through System 1鈥攔eacting emotionally and instinctively rather than deliberating thoroughly.
鈥淗is decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions, gut instinct, and a visceral response to events and people,鈥 Beattie wrote.
Leadership by Emotion: Asset or Liability?
Trump鈥檚 reliance on quick, emotionally charged decisions has long defined both his business and political careers. While this approach resonates with his base as strong and decisive, critics argue that it results in erratic behavior, poor diplomacy, and impulsive policymaking.
In high-stakes global politics, Beattie cautions, instinct alone is not enough.
鈥淭he world at war is a more precarious place, where gut instincts must be tempered by vigilance and deliberation,鈥 he warns.