Analysis: MORNING GLORY: Will President Trump go full Sherman in the w...

5mo ago Apr 22, 2026 at 3:34 PM

MORNING GLORY: Will President Trump go full Sherman in the war on Iran?
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/morning-glory-president-trump-go-full-sherman-war-iran

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-04-22. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

Elevated

Narcissistic State

Grandiose

Authorship

Uncertain

Intensity

55%

On the day of the April 22 Iran ceasefire deadline — with Iran having rejected Islamabad talks and the US Navy having seized the Touska days earlier — the subject amplifies a Fox News opinion piece asking whether he will 'go full Sherman in the war on Iran.' The share operates as identity construction and signaling rather than policy argument: by endorsing the Sherman frame without commentary, the subject aligns himself with a historical figure synonymous with scorched-earth destruction of civilian-adjacent infrastructure, directly echoing his own April 20 ultimatum threatening 'every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran.' Psychologically, this reflects grandiose-warrior self-positioning, ego-syntonic comfort with maximal-destruction imagery, and a preferred protagonist role as decisive destroyer rather than dealmaker. Defenses include idealization (Sherman-equivalent self-concept), rationalization (historical precedent legitimizing infrastructure targeting), and implicit devaluation of Iran as a negotiating partner. Danger level is elevated — not because the post contains explicit incitement, but because it normalizes and preemptively legitimizes a scorched-earth escalation on deadline day, functioning as a third-party-endorsed threat. Authorship is ambiguous: timing and polish lean aide, but the content aligns so tightly with the subject's warrior self-image that personal sharing is plausible, and it sits within a cluster of clearly authentic same-morning posts.

Authorship Analysis

Uncertain

Indicators:

Business-hours timing (~11:34 AM ET) consistent with aide posting
Bare headline + URL format with no added commentary is a pattern used both by Trump and by staff
Clean formatting, no typos, no ALL-CAPS emotional drift
Subject matter (flattering Fox News op-ed endorsing escalation against Iran) aligns with Trump's self-image and current preoccupation, which is consistent with him personally reposting
Earlier same-day posts (Supreme Court tirade with 'Low IQ person,' 'Sleepy Joe!') are clearly authentic; this share sits within a run of likely authentic activity

Psychological Profile

▶ Traits

Big Five:

Extraversion

70%

Agreeableness

20%

Conscientiousness

40%

Neuroticism

50%

Openness

40%

Strongest facet: assertiveness/low agreeableness

Agency

85%

Communion

10%

Primary drive: power

▶ Narrative

Role: wartime commander / Sherman-equivalent decisive destroyer · Arc: neutral · Contrasting: Iran

Historic wartime leaderDecisive figure willing to use total force

▶ State

Grandiose State

Trigger: Maintenance (Flattering Fox News op-ed on day of ceasefire deadline)

Sentiment

-0.30

Mildly Hypomanic

Warrior-mode grandiosity framed via Sherman analogyAppetite for maximal escalation on deadline day

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

60%

Antisocial

55%

Paranoid

30%

Sadism

50%

Defense Mechanisms:

idealizationrationalizationdevaluation

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

50%

Parasocial Techniques:

Amplification of flattering media framingWarrior-archetype identity signaling

Danger Assessment

Elevated

Indicators:

Endorsement of 'full Sherman' framing — historical shorthand for scorched-earth destruction of infrastructure
Post follows subject's own April 20 ultimatum threatening Iranian power plants and bridges
Timing on ceasefire deadline day with Iran having rejected talks elevates signaling function
Violent imagery via historical reference to civilian-infrastructure targeting

Rhetorical Analysis

Violent Imagery Present

Fact Checks (1)

"The Fox News op-ed asks whether Trump should 'go full Sherman' in the war on Iran — i.e., pursue a scorched-earth campaign against Iranian infrastructure on the model of Sherman's March to the Sea"

True

Both components of this claim are verified. First, the Fox News op-ed exists at the URL provided (foxnews.com/opinion/morning-glory-president-trump-go-full-sherman-war-iran), authored by Hugh Hewitt as part of his recurring 'Morning Glory' column. The op-ed extensively references General William Tecumseh Sherman's Civil War campaigns — including the March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah — and explicitly advocates targeting Iranian infrastructure. Hewitt writes: 'If Trump taps into that and decides to do to Iran's oil and energy and transportation infrastructure from the air what Lincoln allowed Sherman to do to the Confederacy...it will not be unprecedented.' He also quotes Sherman's famous line: 'War is cruelty and you cannot refine it.' Second, the historical characterization of Sherman is accurate. Sherman's March to the Sea (November 15–December 21, 1864) is universally documented across mainstream historical sources (Wikipedia, Britannica, American Battlefield Trust, History.com, New Georgia Encyclopedia, Bill of Rights Institute) as a 'scorched earth' campaign of 'total war' or 'hard war' that systematically destroyed military targets, industry, infrastructure, and civilian property to disrupt the Confederate economy. Sherman's forces wrecked approximately 300 miles of railroad track and telegraph lines, destroyed tunnels and bridges, and seized over 20,000 head of livestock and 9 million pounds of corn — an explicit strategy of demoralizing the civilian population alongside military targets. The 'Sherman' analogy as shorthand for scorched-earth destruction of civilian-adjacent infrastructure is therefore historically accurate, and the op-ed does in fact pose this question and advocate for it.

Receipts (3)

“Iran is not a good-faith negotiating partner and treating it as such would be a strategic mistake.”

Apr 22, 2026

vs.

“Trump has designated personal representatives to conduct negotiations with Iran”

Apr 21, 2026

The source claim asserts that treating Iran as a good-faith negotiating partner is a strategic mistake. This candidate directly contradicts that: Trump explicitly designated personal representatives for negotiations with Iran, appealed to Iranian leaders' sense of respect and goodwill, and called a potential hostage release 'a great start to our negotiations' — fully treating Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner capable of good-faith gestures.

View contradicting post →

“Iran has rejected diplomatic negotiations, implicitly justifying escalation to military options.”

Apr 22, 2026

vs.

“Trump has the Strait of Hormuz 'totally BLOCKADED (CLOSED!).'”

Apr 22, 2026

The post context explicitly states: 'People approached me four days ago, saying, Sir, Iran wants to open up the Strait, immediately.' This describes an active diplomatic overture from the Iranian side — Iran reaching out to seek a negotiated resolution. This directly and specifically contradicts the source claim that 'Iran has rejected diplomatic negotiations,' which was used to justify military escalation. If Iran was actively approaching the US to negotiate, the premise that Iran rejected diplomacy collapses.

View contradicting post →

“Iran is not a good-faith negotiating partner and treating it as such would be a strategic mistake.”

Apr 22, 2026

vs.

“Pakistan holds enough diplomatic standing and leverage with the United States to delay a U.S. military strike on a third country.”

Apr 21, 2026

The source claim says treating Iran as a good-faith negotiating partner would be a 'strategic mistake,' yet this candidate shows Trump actively halting a military strike on Iran specifically to allow Iranian leaders time to 'come up with a unified proposal' — operationally treating them as a potential negotiating partner whose proposals are worth waiting for. This is the behavior the source claim explicitly condemns.

View contradicting post →

Analysis

Post: Bare share of a Fox News op-ed headlined "MORNING GLORY: Will President Trump go full Sherman in the war on Iran?" with URL only — no added commentary.

Authorship

Genuinely ambiguous. Posted at ~11:34 AM ET (business hours), cleanly formatted, no typos — all aide-consistent markers. However, the post sits within a same-morning cluster that includes clearly authentic material (the Supreme Court rant with "Low IQ person," "Sleepy Joe!"), and Trump personally shares flattering Fox op-eds constantly, especially ones casting him in historic-warrior terms. Score ~0.55, low confidence.

Context & Function

The post lands on the April 22 ceasefire deadline with Iran having (1) rejected the Islamabad talks as "childish," (2) had the cargo ship Touska forcibly seized by the USS Spruance, and (3) been threatened by the subject's own April 20 ultimatum to destroy "every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran." The Sherman analogy is not decorative — it is a historical license for exactly that plan. Sherman's March to the Sea is the canonical American reference for scorched-earth destruction of civilian-adjacent infrastructure.

Amplifying this headline without caveat functions as:

Narrative pre-legitimization of escalation should talks fully collapse
Identity construction as Sherman-class historical decider
Signaling to Iran on deadline day via plausibly-deniable third-party framing

Psychological State

Grandiose-warrior state, ego-syntonic comfort with total-war imagery
Agency/power motive dominant (~0.85); communion near zero
Defenses: idealization (Sherman-equivalent self), rationalization (historical precedent for infrastructure targeting), devaluation of Iran as negotiating counterpart
Archetype: Warrior / King-as-destroyer; shadow projected onto Iran

Rhetorical Techniques

Euphemism ("full Sherman" sanitizing scorched-earth), historical analogy as argument, headline-as-share (outsourced advocacy), veiled threat via third-party endorsement, martial framing.

Danger

Elevated. No explicit incitement, but the post normalizes civilian-infrastructure targeting on deadline day, endorsed through historical reference that makes destruction sound patriotic rather than catastrophic. Violent imagery is present via the Sherman reference.

Cognitive

Insufficient original language to assess. No deviation markers.

Notable

The subject's decision to amplify a "full Sherman" framing — rather than, say, a diplomacy-focused op-ed — on deadline day is itself the most revealing data point. It indicates the preferred self-concept heading into the next phase is destroyer, not dealmaker.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"The Fox News op-ed asks whether Trump should 'go full Sherman' in the war on Iran — i.e., pursue a scorched-earth campaign against Iranian infrastructure on the model of Sherman's March to the Sea"	True	Both components of this claim are verified. First, the Fox News op-ed exists at the URL provided (foxnews.com/opinion/morning-glory-president-trump-go-full-sherman-war-iran), authored by Hugh Hewitt as part of his recurring 'Morning Glory' column. The op-ed extensively references General William Tecumseh Sherman's Civil War campaigns — including the March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah — and explicitly advocates targeting Iranian infrastructure. Hewitt writes: 'If Trump taps into that and decides to do to Iran's oil and energy and transportation infrastructure from the air what Lincoln allowed Sherman to do to the Confederacy...it will not be unprecedented.' He also quotes Sherman's famous line: 'War is cruelty and you cannot refine it.' Second, the historical characterization of Sherman is accurate. Sherman's March to the Sea (November 15–December 21, 1864) is universally documented across mainstream historical sources (Wikipedia, Britannica, American Battlefield Trust, History.com, New Georgia Encyclopedia, Bill of Rights Institute) as a 'scorched earth' campaign of 'total war' or 'hard war' that systematically destroyed military targets, industry, infrastructure, and civilian property to disrupt the Confederate economy. Sherman's forces wrecked approximately 300 miles of railroad track and telegraph lines, destroyed tunnels and bridges, and seized over 20,000 head of livestock and 9 million pounds of corn — an explicit strategy of demoralizing the civilian population alongside military targets. The 'Sherman' analogy as shorthand for scorched-earth destruction of civilian-adjacent infrastructure is therefore historically accurate, and the op-ed does in fact pose this question and advocate for it.

Overall Veracity: 100%

Receipts (3)

major — foreign-policy (1 day earlier)

> "Iran is not a good-faith negotiating partner and treating it as such would be a strategic mistake."

vs.

> "Trump has designated personal representatives to conduct negotiations with Iran"

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_116442908819175250)

major — iran (1 day earlier)

> "Iran has rejected diplomatic negotiations, implicitly justifying escalation to military options."

vs.

> "Trump has the Strait of Hormuz 'totally BLOCKADED (CLOSED!).'"

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_116445555373723862)

moderate — foreign-policy (1 day earlier)

> "Iran is not a good-faith negotiating partner and treating it as such would be a strategic mistake."

vs.

> "Pakistan holds enough diplomatic standing and leverage with the United States to delay a U.S. military strike on a third country."

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_116444507618729432)