The world did feel safer. I don't know whether that was an illusion.
I’m in two minds about this, Roch, leaning towards illusion. Some of “Trumps” actions in office were equally acts of war and brought us to the brink. The murder of Iranian General Soleimani in Baghdad being probably the most egregious of these actions, in my view. The Iranian response on that occasion was to strike two US bases in Iraq with a volley of pinpoint missiles. “Trump” vowed, “if a single hair of any US personnel were harmed that Iran would be obliterated” or some such. As it turned out over 100 US personnel were injured as admitted by the U.S. after some weeks.
Even this string of events allows for some ambiguity however. The US or “Trump” didn’t respond to the Iranian attack, which was a direct attack on US personnel. The fact that the Iranian response was legitimate was not a factor in the US non response. Whether this restraint by the US or “Trump” was because of “Trump” or informed by other factors is where some ambiguity lies. I don’t really believe it matters who the US president is. US restraint was more likely because of the demonstration of power by Iran and the obvious threat to all US bases in the Middle East should the US escalate. The US bases were hit only with missiles using kinetic power to damage the two U.S. bases, that is no warheads on the missiles. The implied threat is apparent to all.
That is why I refer to Trump using inverted commas-I’m not sure that even Trump has complete agency to act unilaterally.
I believe the damage is extensive at the two Israeli airbases and likewise with the attack on the US bases, there is a much larger implied threat waiting in the wings should Israel choose to escalate.