Toxic Masculinity, Global Leaders, and the Iran War:
Utilizing toxic masculinity as an analytical framework for understanding actions in the Iran War
By Marco Cisneros-Farber
Introduction
The conflict in Iran has defied the expectations of international relations experts who analyze global events through the traditional realist paradigm. The United States’ involvement with Iran in defense of Israel is difficult to explain through realist logic, because American self-interest is not aligned with the defense of Israeli self-interest [1]. The United States ought to be concerned about its position as a declining global superpower, prioritizing the maintenance of its dominance over Russia and, especially, China. In contrast, Israel is concerned with its own survival—it views its sovereignty as directly threatened by Iran and its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. But the survival of Israel does not necessarily ensure the dominance of the United States, given that its influence is being challenged more directly in the Asian and European theatres.
Furthermore, this war is economically costly for the United States. In April, the Pentagon estimated that the war in Iran had cost upward of $25 billion [2]. When considering rebuilding costs for damaged US bases, estimates fall into the $40-$50 billion range [3]. The war has also caused economic harm to the US in other ways, such as Iran’s blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, causing oil prices to skyrocket to record highs [4]. These economic burdens weaken the absolute economic power of the United States, but also its relative economic power, as competitors like China and Russia are less impacted by rising oil costs, and are not facing stark military costs [5]. This makes continued US involvement in the war unwise from a realist perspective.
Rather than using conventional realist theory, we can explain the war using feminist theory, looking explicitly at the role of masculinity. In general, people prefer masculine personality traits in leaders, especially during war times [6] Due to this, attempts to act in a masculine way factor into the decision-making of individual leaders—how they are perceived matters to them, and it matters to their negotiating power. While not all actions made by leaders in the Iran War can be explained by performative masculinity, it is a particularly important factor in understanding negotiations in the war. These negotiations are critical; they involve the use of airspaces, characterizations of opposition, concessions by different states, and ending the war.
Interestingly, the desire to be perceived as masculine in these public-facing situations leads to toxic masculine behaviors—the application of masculine traits and behaviors that are damaging to an individual or the people around them. To develop a better understanding of the outcomes in the Iran War, one can examine when global leaders’ statements conform to toxic masculinity. This paper seeks to demonstrate the extent to which the actions in this war are being driven by toxic masculinity by analysing three exchanges: US Secretary of Defense (War) Pete Hegseth’s statements on the Iran War, US-Spain airspace squabbles, and US-Israel-Iran statements on the April 2026 ceasefire.
Expanding Toxic Masculinity
Toxic masculinity is a term developed by Dr. Shepard Bliss in the 1980s during the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement [7]. It initially described his father’s authoritarian personality [8]. It has since expanded into academia, policy spheres, and the general public.
Toxic masculinity is also associated with an advocacy for homophobia and misogyny [9]. The set of behaviors ascribed to toxic masculinity explains this tendency well. Homosexuality sits within a flexible spectrum, rather than a clear binary. Toxic masculine behavior opposes this kind of flexibility, seeking power through rigidity. Similarly, toxic masculine behavior endorses misogyny because it is domineering in nature—toxic masculine individuals seek power over others. Given that, in current conceptions of a patriarchal gender hierarchy, women sit below men, toxic masculine behavior manifests in domineering attitudes toward women, as power can be readily asserted over them in a rigid, hierarchical system. Much discourse on toxic masculinity exists in feminist academia. The term itself has been criticized as one that will “work to maintain gender hierarchies and individualize responsibility for gender inequalities to certain bad men”[10]. This definition highlights how toxic masculinity is damaging to both the individuals who embody toxic-masculine ideals and the people around them, such that toxic masculinity is harmful to everyone—including men [11]. Toxic masculinity is not a term that must only be applied to men—it is the application of damaging masculine traits and behaviors by any individual. This avoids criticism of toxic masculinity as maintaining gender hierarchies or gender essentialism, which could make it a less productive term [12].
The following table compares feminine, traditional masculine, and toxic masculine traits. It demonstrates 4 main traits for each category, highlighting how conventional understandings of feminine, traditional masculine, and toxic masculine behaviors. For example, a leader may be seen as feminine when responding to adjusted terms in a negotiation in a way that demonstrates dedication, or responding with a selfless expression of desire for terms more appealing to their state. A leader is likely to be perceived as traditionally masculine if they respond with a determined preference. And a leader may be perceived as toxically masculine if they are inflexible, declaring that there is no room for terms outside their preferences.
Iran
With this framing in mind, we can shift to the current Iran war, a complex conflict characterized by competing interests and devastating outcomes. Historically, Iran and Israel have been embroiled in tensions. Iran has sought geopolitical expansion through proxy groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar Allah, and, previously, Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Israel views Iran as its primary threat to sovereignty and hegemony in the Middle East, and so seeks to reduce Iranian power in every way.
There have been decades of masculine posturing between Iranian, Israeli, and US leaders. In 2007, then President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, accused various governments of being “selfish and incompetent,” along with them having “obedience to Satan”[13]. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu has described himself as the “best strategist in the country,” and has presented lies about Hamas tunnels under the Israeli border, demonstrating a preference to lie rather than be wrong [14]. In his first term, President Donald Trump had the United States withdraw from the JCPOA in 2018 [15], and he reimposed sanctions on Iran [16]. Speaking on his decision to withdraw, President Trump stated, “When the United States had maximum leverage, this disastrous deal gave this regime— nd it’s a regime of great terror—many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash—a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States” [17]. He also highlighted threats laid out against America: “America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail. We will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction. And we will not allow a regime that chants “Death to America” to gain access to the most deadly weapons on Earth” [18].
In June of 2025, Israel struck Iranian nuclear and military sites, prompting a two-week-long war between Iran and Israel [19]. The US joined in these strikes, and by July, Iran had suspended its cooperation with the IAEA [20]. In late August, nuclear talks with Iran and the US, France, and Germany resumed. The US and Iran could not agree in these negotiations, and the JCPOA formally expired on October 18 [21].
Oman attempted to revive negotiations between the US and Iran in February, noting the conclusion of a successful meeting on February 26 [22]. But on February 28th, 2026, the US and Israel launched a coordinated attack against Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Notably, these strikes hit a girls’ school in Minab that killed 148 young girls [23]. Again, the US and Israel demonstrated masculine posturing. President Trump said about the strike in Minab, “In my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran” [24]. Justifying Israeli strikes, Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “In the Revival War and Operation Rising Lion our heroic soldiers struck a decisive blow against the Ayatollah regime and its proxies. But the wounded predator has not ceased its attempts to recover, for the same purpose, to destroy us” [25]. Thus, the 2026 Iran War began. On April 7, President Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, which the Iranian National Security Council confirmed [26]. Over 5,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and the Gulf States died in this war [27]. A broader settlement and true resolution to the war have not occurred at the time of writing, but in the wake of ongoing negotiations, it is important to analyze how statements in the war have contributed to its deadly outcomes.
Analysis of Media Statements by Key Actors
-
Pete Hegseth
An analysis of media statements through the framing of toxic masculinity will be applied to three media statements by key actors. The first is US Secretary of Defense (War) Pete Hegseth’s statements on the Iran War. After Operation Epic Fury first took place, Secretary Hegseth addressed the press at the Pentagon. He said, "The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser-focused," citing four objectives: "Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure, and they will never have nuclear weapons" [28]. Moreover, Hegseth justified US action:
Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions…Our bases, our people, our allies, all in their crosshairs — Iran had a conventional gun to our head as they tried to lie their way to a nuclear bomb.
In this statement, Hegseth invoked Iranian nuclear ambitions and powerful conventional capabilities as a rationale for a preventive US attack. Hegseth also addressed US troops. He said, "We will finish this on 'America First' conditions of President Trump's choosing — nobody else's — as it should be." Hegseth’s words clearly can be categorized as domineering, infallible, inflexible, and aggressive. First, Hegseth is demonstrating a desire to dominate. He seeks to completely destroy Iranian security infrastructure, demonstrating a desire for control. Second, Hegseth speaks with a degree of infallibility, rather than confidence. He calls Operation Epic Fury “laser-focused;” mistakes are implied to be impossible. Hegseth accuses Iran’s leaders of being liars, and when speaking to how the war should end, he clarifies that it is only correct that the war ends on President Trump’s terms. He sees the US as providing the truth, meaning the war’s end is only possible on US terms. Third, Hegseth’s statement to finish the war by fulfilling President Trump’s wishes demonstrates inflexibility—only one solution is possible. Fourth, Hegseth’s statement is supremely aggressive. He repeatedly invokes the word “destroy,” signaling a desire to create ruin, death, and general suffering. Finally, Hegseth’s statements are causing harm to others. His inflexibility sets a tonal precedent for further negotiations and statements in the war, especially those made by President Trump.
Hegseth has demonstrated toxic masculinity in other statements, too. During an April 7 press conference, Hegseth stated that Iran had been “embarrassed and humiliated” by the United States, demonstrating an aggrandized rhetoric of dominance [29]. He also demonstrated infallibility, as he refused to acknowledge any falsehoods or exaggerations in his claims about Iran. Secretary Hegseth claimed that the US had “complete control of Iranian skies,” despite Iran shooting down two US warplanes—an F-15 Strike Eagle and an A-10 Thunderbolt II [30]. This rhetoric is harmful to the pursuit of truth about the US military’s efficacy in the Iran War. A spokesman for Secretary Hegseth called The Washington Post’s reporting “a fake story of failure” [31], while only 19% of US adults now believe that America’s military actions in Iran have been successful. Furthermore, 61% of U.S. adults say that the decision to use military force against Iran was a mistake [32]. For Hegseth, winning is the only option. This is leading to unpopular—and dangerous—decision-making that is costing lives.
When pressed for accountability, Secretary Hegseth shies away. He faced a Congressional hearing in the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on April 29 and 30, where he was asked directly about the cost, success, and rationale of the Iran War. Instead of responding directly, Hegseth diverted blame, “the biggest challenge—the biggest adversary we face—at this point, are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of Congressional Democrats—and some Republicans” [33]. Hegseth’s aggression toward others leads to a shirking of responsibility because he lashes out instead of taking blame, demonstrating toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity necessarily involves bad leadership [34], and Secretary Hegseth demonstrates this clearly.
2. Spain and the United States
On March 1, Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares denied the US permission to use Spanish territory for joint-use bases to conduct military operations in Iran. By March 30, Defense Minister Margarita Robles had also denied the United States the use of Spanish airspace for actions related to military operations in Iran. President Trump responded to the initial denial of joint-use bases by saying, “We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain…We don’t want anything to do with Spain” [35]. He also remained adamant that, regardless of Spain’s position, “we [the US] could use their base if we want. We could just fly in and use it. Nobody’s going to tell us not to use it, but we don’t have to” [36]. On March 4, President Pedro Sánchez addressed US tensions in a televised address:
It is naive to believe that democracies or respect between nations can spring from ruins. Or to think that practising blind and servile obedience is a form of leadership … We will not be complicit in something that is bad for the world and that is also contrary to our values and interests, simply out of fear of reprisals from someone [37].
On May 1, President Trump launched threats once more, claiming he would remove American troops from Spain. He stated in a press conference that, “Spain has been horrible. Absolutely horrible.” Trump also claimed, “We didn’t need any help with Iran. We had Iran right from the first day. It was over and now it’s even more so. We’re so locked and loaded…but we didn’t need the help.” Trump went on to explain that requests for Spanish assistance were not because it was necessary, but because “I wanted to see if they’d do it” [38].
The differences between masculine and toxic masculine behaviors can be observed when comparing the statements of the two leaders. President Sánchez is quite forthright; he states exactly what Spain will and will not do. Furthermore, he is unwilling to capitulate to the United States, demonstrating confidence and determination. The boundary between Sánchez being determined and inflexible is thin, but Sánchez grounds his statement in “values and interests,” rather than being unwilling for the sake of it, which is what toxic masculine inflexibility would be. Conversely, President Trump’s statements are clearly aggressive. He resorts to insults such as “horrible,” and he characterizes the United States military as infallible when he says, “we didn’t need any help.” This makes his request for help more inflexible. Rather than being grounded in values or interests, President Trump’s request is grounded in whim.
Spain’s leaders have also consistently grounded their rejection of the US in international law and norms. At an EU leadership summit in April, President Sánchez told reporters, “The Spanish government's position is clear — absolute cooperation with the allies, but always within the framework of international legality” [39]. Spain’s leaders are not operating with a ‘win-or-else’ mentality. They seek international stability and compliance with norms, where toxic masculine behavior would instead lead to a breakdown of norms for the sake of victory. President Trump’s interactions with Spanish leadership demonstrate a contrast between toxic masculine behaviors and traditional masculine behaviors in world leaders, and the consequences are clear. Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution recently wrote in an article for the Atlantic, “Welcome to the era of the rogue American superpower. It will be lonely and dangerous” [40]. Some of America’s rogue actions can be understood through the analytical tool of toxic masculine behavior. As President Trump continues to act without regard for anything but ‘winning,’ while seeking to distance himself from being perceived as “weak” or “feminine” (words he associates with each other) [41], the historic alliances between the US and European states will edge closer to dangerous breaking points. The Iran War is but one of these rogue actions splitting US-European relations—and it is a deadly action too.
3. US-Israel-Iran ceasefire statements
On April 7, President Trump announced a two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran [42]. Earlier that day, President Trump posted on Truth Social:
A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran! [43]
This extreme threat contrasts greatly with President Trump’s optimistic tone in his ceasefire announcement: “This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE!” and “We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate” [44]. Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, responded on X (formerly Twitter), “If attacks against Iran are halted, our Powerful Armed Forces will cease their defensive operations” [45] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel issued a similar statement, but also declared a sort of victory in his agreement to the ceasefire:
If we hadn't set out on Operation Rising Lion, and then if we hadn't set out on Operation Roaring Lion, Iran would have long ago had nuclear weapons, and Iran would have had many thousands of missiles to destroy Israel and threaten the existence of us all.We have removed this double existential threat from over our heads. We have set the terrorist regime in Iran back many years. We have shaken its foundations. We have crushed it.
What we have achieved up to now: We smashed Iran's missile production machine. Not only did we destroy existing missiles, we destroyed the factories that produce. The Iranians are firing what is left in their arsenal, and the arsenal is emptying out. But they are not producing new missiles [46].
Netanyahu also noted that this ceasefire did not include Lebanon, where fighting has continued despite a separate April 16 ceasefire to which Israel and Lebanon eventually agreed [47]. These statements demonstrate the ways in which leaders seek to demonstrate their victory, rather than celebrate successful diplomacy. Only President Trump’s ceasefire statement does not display the hallmarks of toxic masculinity. He is not aggressive toward Iran in his statement, nor is he inflexible. Indeed, President Trump speaks of a possibility for negotiations, holding a tempered view of success for the future. Furthermore, he makes no mention of the US military’s success or infallibility. But this may be due to his earlier, hyper-toxic statement where he threatened the destruction of Iranian society. President Trump’s earlier threat meets all the analytical bars for toxic masculine behavior. Minister Araghchi and Prime Minister Netanyahu both demonstrate toxic masculine behavior in their ceasefire statements. Araghchi frames the conflict as defensive on Iran’s end and within the country’s total control. He intentionally emphasizes the power of the Iranian armed forces. This language, which Aragachi seeks to associate with the Iranian Armed Forces, is dangerous for the prospects of peace because it is necessarily anti-diplomatic. Netanyahu includes similar language in his ceasefire agreement, using the phrases: “Israel is as strong as it has ever been” and “We are prepared to return to combat at any necessary moment. Our finger is on the trigger” [48]. These statements prioritize the strength of Israel and the pursuit of victory over an end to fighting. This priority has manifested clearly in the conflict. Israel and Iran have continued smaller-scale attacks on each other, resulting in death and destruction despite a supposed ceasefire [49].
Conclusion
The Iran War ceasefire will continue to be at risk while each party involved demonstrates toxic masculine behavior. The set of actions included in toxic masculinity leads to a prioritization of victory over peace and a powerful desire to dominate. The structure of a gender binary and the negative association with femininity in a patriarchal society encourage leaders to act in the extreme as powerful, masculine figures. The actions they take to be perceived as masculine are over-shot and become toxic. In the Iran War, key leaders have demonstrated hallmark behaviors of toxic masculinity, such as domination, aggression, inflexibility, and infallibility; these actions are directly harming the citizens of each country and creating a cycle of violence that cannot be broken without directly addressing a patriarchal system that drives these deadly behaviors.
Works Cited
[1] Mohamed, D. (2025, January 15). What Political “Realism” Says About The Gaza War. Worldcrunch. https://worldcrunch.com/focus/israel-palestine-war/israel-gaza-political-realism/
[2] Myre, G. (2026, April 29). The Iran war now has a price tag ($25 billion), but still no end date. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2026/04/29/g-s1-119333/the-iran-war-now-has-a-price-tag-25-billion-but-still-no-end-date
[3] Bertrand, N., & Cohen, Z. (2026, April 30). Repairing damaged US military bases will add billions to Iran war cost, sources say. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/29/politics/us-iran-war-25-billion-cost-estimate-low
[4] Saunokonoko, M., & Ambrose, J. (2026, April 30). Oil price tops $126 a barrel after Trump warns Iran blockade could last “months.” The Guardian; The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/30/oil-price-news-highest-since-2022-us-iran-ceasefire-strait-of-hormuz
[5] The Associated Press. (2026, April 30). China’s factory activity expands for a second month despite shocks from the Iran war. WTOP News. https://wtop.com/world/2026/04/chinas-factory-activity-expands-for-a-second-month-despite-shocks-from-the-iran-war/
[6] Van Vugt, M., PhD. (2022, May 27). Investigating what kind of leader Ukrainians want. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naturally-selected/202205/war-and-the-preference-strong-leader
[7] Harrington, C. (2020). What is “Toxic Masculinity” and Why Does it Matter? Men And Masculinities, 24(2), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x20943254
[7] Ibid
[8] Parent, M. C., Gobble, T. D., & Rochlen, A. (2018). Social media behavior, toxic masculinity, and depression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 20(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000156
[9] Harrington, C. (2020b). What is “Toxic Masculinity” and Why Does it Matter? Men And Masculinities, 24(2), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x20943254
[10] Fokt, S. (2025). Redefining toxic masculinity. Masculinities & Social Change, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.17583/mcs.15921
[11] Ibid
[12] Hanna, J. (2011, September 23). Walkouts and fury: A look at Ahmadinejad’s U.N. speeches. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/22/world/un-ahmadinejad-speeches
[13] Kimhi, S., Yehoshua, S., & Oliel, Y. (2017). Behavior Analysis of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1999 and 2017: What has Changed? Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/jounal-article-info/Annals-of-Psychiatry-and-Mental-Health/Behavior-Analysis-of-Benjamin-Netanyahu-in-1999-and-2017:-What-has-Changed%3F-7512
[14] Gurdak, M. P., Yeargin, D. G., Habib, F. A., & Nelson, L. M. (2018, May 11). Impact of U.S. Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal. Insights | Jones Day. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2018/05/impact-of-us-withdrawal-from-the-iran-nuclear-deal
[15] Humphries, R. (2021, March 10). Fact Sheet: The Iran Deal, Then and Now. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. https://armscontrolcenter.org/the-iran-deal-then-and-now/
[16] The New York Times. (2018, May 8). Read the Full Transcript of Trump’s Speech on the Iran Nuclear Deal. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/politics/trump-speech-iran-deal.html
[17] Ibid
[18] Al Jazeera. (2026, February 28). US, Israel bomb Iran: A timeline of talks and threats leading up to attacks. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/us-israel-bomb-iran-a-timeline-of-talks-and-threats-leading-up-to-attacks
[19] Ibid
[20] What You Need to Know About the Iran Nuclear Deal. (2025, September 17). ICAN. https://www.icanw.org/what_you_need_to_know_about_the_iran_nuclear_deal
[21] Ibid
[22] Pourahmadi, A. (2026, February 28). February 28, 2026 — US-Israeli strikes on Iran | CNN. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-attack-02-28-26-hnk-intl?post-id=cmm73v6qo000b3b6r2bogv6my
[23] Barnes, J. E., Schmitt, E., Pager, T., Browne, M., & Cooper, H. (2026, March 11). U.S. at Fault in Strike on School in Iran, Preliminary Inquiry Says. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/us/politics/iran-school-missile-strike.html
[24] The Associated Press. (2026, February 28). Read the Israeli prime minister’s full statement on Iran. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/iran-netanyahu-address-israel-bed51278600297c4dfdd4f954bbfed4b
[25] Bassem Mroue, Gambrell, J., Corder, M., & Samy Magdy. (2026, April 7). As Trump deadline for Iran nears, Iran and the US ramp up rhetoric. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-trump-lebanon-april-7-2026-421ee64fdc9a5c26460df8119c7d1b3f
[26] Abdallah, N., & Menna Alaaeldin. (2026, March 3). How many people have been killed in the Iran war? Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-people-have-been-killed-us-israel-war-iran-2026-04-07/
[27] Lopez, C. T. (2026, March 2). Hegseth Says “Epic Fury” Goals in Iran Are “Laser-Focused.” U.S. Department of War. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4418826/hegseth-says-epic-fury-goals-in-iran-are-laser-focused/
[28] Hudson, J., Nakashima, E., & Copp, T. (2026, April 7). Hegseth’s boastful claims about Iran war contradict reality, officials say. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/07/hegseth-iran-rhetoric/
[29] Horton, A., & Copp, T. (2026, April 3). U.S. fighter jet crashes in Iran; search launched for 2 crew members. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/03/f-15-crash-iran-missing/
[30] Hudson, J., Nakashima, E., & Copp, T. (2026, April 7). Hegseth’s boastful claims about Iran war contradict reality, officials say. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/07/hegseth-iran-rhetoric/
[31] Birnbaum, M., & Clement, S. (2026, May). Poll: Trump’s Iran war reaches Iraq- and Vietnam-era disapproval levels. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/05/01/poll-trump-iran-war-iraq/
[32] Finley, B., et. al. (2026, April 29). WATCH LIVE: Hegseth, Caine testify for the 1st time since start of Iran war in House hearing. PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-hegseth-caine-testify-for-the-1st-time-since-start-of-iran-war-in-house-hearing
[33] Matos, K., O’Neill, O. M., & Lei, X. (2018). Toxic Leadership and the Masculinity Contest Culture: How “Win or Die” Cultures Breed Abusive Leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 500–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12284
[34] Hussein, F., & Suman Naishadham. (2026, March 3). Trump threatens to cut off trade with Spain. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-spain-iran-trade-defense-nato-spending-43e0f13e7b1c7e6ebcc4b558474aacdc
[35] Ibid
[36] Jones, S., Chrisafis, A., Cole, D., & Tondo, L. (2026, March 6). A lone battle: Why is Pedro Sánchez the only European leader to take on Trump? The Guardian; The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/06/pedro-sanchez-spain-european-leader-take-on-trump
[37] Forbes Breaking News. (2026, April 30). Trump Asked If He Is Considering Pulling Troops Out Of Italy And Spain Amid Hormuz Closure. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGnmNm5fGA
[38] Muller, N. (2026, April 24). Spain responds to reported US plans to punish NATO allies. Dw.com; Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/spain-responds-to-reported-us-plans-to-punish-nato-allies/a-76923103
[39] Kagan, R. (2026, March 30). The Atlantic. The Atlantic; theatlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/03/trump-us-power-iran/686567/
[40] Bud McClure. (2020, October 19). Donald Trump’s Hatred of Women | Common Dreams. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/10/19/donald-trumps-hatred-women
[41] Trump, D. (2026). Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump). Truth Social. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116365796713313030
[42] Ibid
[43] Ibid
[44] Araghchi, S. A. (2026). X (Formerly Twitter). https://x.com/araghchi/status/2041655156215799821
[45] Netanyahu, B. (2026). Www.gov.il. https://www.gov.il/en/pages/event-statement080426
[46] Ten Day Cessation of Hostilities to Enable Peace Negotiations Between Israel and Lebanon - United States Department of State. (2026, April 16). United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/04/ten-day-cessation-of-hostilities-to-enable-peace-negotiations-between-israel-and-lebanon
[47] Netanyahu, B. (2026). Www.gov.il. https://www.gov.il/en/pages/event-statement080426
[48] Andrews, F. (2026, May 8). Live Updates: Trump says ceasefire still in effect as Iran calls Strait of Hormuz attacks “point of no return.” Cbsnews.com. https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-trump-us-attacks-qeshm-island-ceasefire/
