The absence of any prominent discourse by Trump on the alleged assassination threats from Iran during his campaign could be attributed to several strategic reasons. Firstly, publicly discussing such threats might escalate tensions or provoke further action, which might not be advantageous during a campaign. Instead, choosing to focus on broader national security themes rather than specific threats could appeal more widely to his constituents, portraying a strong but measured leadership.
Additionally, discussing assassination threats could make Trump’s campaign and personal safety more overtly vulnerable and become a distraction from his political agenda and objectives. By emphasizing other elements of his platform, such as economic policies or domestic issues, Trump might aim to rally a broader base without overshadowing his message with fear and unrest.
Finally, it could also be a strategic decision to maintain confidence in his security measures and military strategy, demonstrating that threats against him will be handled decisively behind the scenes without causing potential panic or concern among voters. The balance between showcasing strength and avoiding unnecessary alarm or provocation is delicate and might explain the reticence on this sensitive matter during his campaign speeches.
