By Dan McLaughlin
Thursday, June 19, 2025
With Donald Trump now loudly backing Israel’s war on the
Iranian nuclear program and issuing increasingly hawkish warnings against the
mullahs, there has been a lot of teeth-gnashing and garment-rending from the
usual quarters — and these days, those usual quarters are a horseshoe-shaped
alliance of doves and antisemites on the “restrainer” right and the progressive
left. At times, it can be hard to tell their rhetoric apart. They form a
uniparty of opposition to resisting America’s sworn enemies.
Consider a sampling, culled mostly from X/Twitter, of
commentary since Israel launched its strikes on Natanz:
·
“Talks to address Iran’s nuclear program were
planned for Sunday. Instead Netanyahu launched illegal strikes on Iran, killing
a top ceasefire negotiator, undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts & putting
countless innocent lives at risk. We can’t be dragged into another Netanyahu
war.” [Bernie Sanders]
·
“This is insane. Regime change will result in a
bloody civil war, killing hundreds of thousands and creating another massive
Muslim refugee crisis. Topping a leader is NEVER as easy you think. It almost
always results in further involvement, a civil war, and chaos. Resist this!” [Charlie
Kirk]
·
“This is all so unnecessary. All of it.
Everywhere.” [Ben Rhodes] “Trump was either totally humiliated by Bibi or
has been lying about his commitment to ending wars. Either way, this is an
utterly pointless, dangerous, and immoral action.” [Rhodes]
“War is breaking out because Trump pulled out of the Iran Deal and got
humiliated by Netanyahu while trying to negotiate his own, and he’s gonna have
a military parade for his birthday. The weakest strongman.” [Rhodes]
“This war will above all harm innocent people for no good reason. We live in
truly cruel, perilous and stupid times.” [Rhodes]
·
“It’s a lie. In fact, there is zero credible
intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans
to. None. . . . America’s record of overthrowing foreign leaders is so
embarrassingly counterproductive that regime change has become a synonym for
disaster. . . . It goes without saying that there are very few Trump voters
who’d support a regime change war in Iran.” [Tucker
Carlson]
·
“This is deeply disturbing. . . . I think here
it’s important to say we need more negotiation, we need deescalation. We need
to get to a deal.” [Elizabeth Warren]
·
“The most predictable war, plausibly ever. I’m
so sick of Israel and those who pretend its actions are normal or even remotely
justifiable. This country has a bloodlust like no other. Have an issue with
this tweet? I literally do not care. Think defending Israel’s demonic actions
is going to guarantee you a spot in heaven? Double your indulgences and sign
your offspring up to die for Netanyahu. Leave the rest of us the hell alone.” [Candace
Owens]
·
“The Israeli government bombing Iran is a
dangerous escalation that could lead to regional war. War Criminal Netanyahu
will do anything to maintain his grip on power. We cannot let him drag our
country into a war with Iran. Our government must stop funding and supporting
this rogue genocidal regime.” [Rashida
Tlaib]
·
“Say what you will about neocons, but their
ability to seamlessly replace a disastrous, unpopular war with a brand new one
is unrivaled.” [Sean Davis] “Lindsey Graham never had a bad idea he wasn’t
willing to get other people killed for so he could preen on TV.” [Davis]
·
“Any Democrat who supports this war with Iran
needs to be primaried. Our generation grew up going through two multi trillion
dollar wars we should have never been involved in. We are not fucking going
back to that. If you think this is a good idea read a history book.” [David
Hogg]
·
“Israel is trying to get Iran to attack us just
like your bitchy ex who tried goading some dude in a bar to fight you” [Tim
Pool]
·
“The real story is that blood-thirsty neocons
exploited Trump’s jealous hatred of Obama to convince him to rip up the JCPOA,
precisely so we’d arrive at the crossroads we’ve reached today. He’s giving
them what they used him for.” [Brian
Beutler]
·
“Tacky jingoism. Will end in tears. And who
cares about “total control of the skies over Iran?” Is that what tens of
millions of frustrated and desperate Americans put their faith in this person
to achieve? I missed that part. Though heard a lot about ‘no more endless
wars.’” [Curt Mills]
·
“So . . . does Iran have a right to defend
itself?” [Mehdi Hasan]
·
“We should commence airstrikes on Tel Aviv
immediately.” [Darryl Cooper]
·
“The U.S. should not join a war against Iran,
and I will ask the Senate to stop such a reckless idea. Have we learned nothing
from 20+ years of war in the Middle East?” [Tim
Kaine]
·
“I’ll admit I didn’t think I’d see every
discredited, lazy, mendacious GWOT slogan from 2003 suddenly reemerge less than
6 months into Trump’s second term, but here we are.” [John
Daniel Davidson] “If Israel can’t destroy Fordow without the U.S. military
they should have thought about that before launching unilateral strikes on
Iran. We didn’t vote for this and we don’t want it.” [Davidson]
·
“Donald Trump telling [Iran] to come back to the
negotiating table now is a joke…I supported him, I apologize for doing so. He
should be impeached and removed for this one.” [Dave
Smith]
·
“What in the world does this mean @SenSchumer? ‘I believe
Congress and Senate Democrats, if necessary, will not hesitate to exercise our
authority.’ This is why your numbers are toxic with our base. They want us to
be the anti-war party again.” [Ro
Khanna]
·
“Will the Strait of Hormuz be the new Gulf of
Tonkin?” [Jack Posobiec]
·
“Israel’s attack on Iran, clearly intended to
scuttle the Trump Administration’s negotiations with Tehran, is further
evidence of how little respect world powers — including our own allies — have
for President Trump.” [Chris
Murphy]
·
“Trump has now praised Israel’s strike, affirmed
US material support; and Israeli media is reporting his public opposition was a
disinformation campaign to mislead Iran[.] So in other words Trump, not Israel,
has made a mockery of all of us wanted to avoid this war.” [Saagar
Enjeti]
·
“The overwhelming consensus among Democratic
lawmakers commenting on Israeli attacks on Iran tonight is that Netanyahu is
sabotaging diplomacy and recklessly risking a war. The next step should be to
make clear: No US help, no US forces, and no US taxpayer funding for Bibi’s
war.” [Dylan Williams]
·
“Almost every significant populist MAGA
influencer — @RealAlexJones @TuckerCarlson @scrowder @Stevebannon_sk
@Peoples_Pundit @mtgreenee @mattgaetz @Cernovich @JackPosobiec etc. — agree
that @realDonaldTrump should stay out of direct further involvement in the
#IsraelIranConflict” [Robert Barnes]
·
“Who pushed it now? Who runs this city — Obama
or Trump — it doesn’t matter. If we don’t stop it now, we lose the country.” [Steve
Bannon]
·
“Netanyahu wants a broader war. . . . This was
inevitable, given the U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. Arms embargo now.” [Nina
Turner] “We warned of this” [Turner]
·
“Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully
involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA. Wishing for murder
of innocent people is disgusting. We are sick and tired of foreign wars. All of
them.” [Marjorie Taylor Greene]
·
“What’s driving this war is not the fear that
Iran won’t sign a nuclear deal but the fear that it will.” [Jeet
Heer]
·
“The American Communist Party stands with the
revolutionary Iranian people against Zionist and imperialist aggression!” [American
Communist Party]
I could go on, but you get the idea. The reality is that
both of these factions have a fundamentally similar view of America’s role in
the world, in which American power is a bad thing, and American victory at best
unthinkable, and at worst an outcome to be actively avoided. Both built their
foreign policy worldviews over the past two decades entirely in opposition to
the Iraq War. What unites Barack Obama, JD Vance, and their circles is that
Obama and Vance both made their careers around denouncing that war — in Vance’s
case, to the point of dismissing any possible distinction between the Iraq and
Ukraine conflicts. It’s not surprising that both factions have used a lot of
similar rhetoric in arguing for essentially the same nuclear deal with Iran.
While both groups include many voices who are not antisemitic, both include
many who are.
Both groups hate to be reminded how much they have in
common. They are right, of course, that occasions for military action tend to
drive a wedge into the Democratic Party’s coalition by separating the reliably
anti-war progressives from the party’s more centrist elements, and with the
growth of the anti-interventionist faction on the right, the same can be said
for the Republican Party’s coalition. But while that division tends to be more
painful for the party in power, it doesn’t go away just by doing nothing and
letting American interests be trampled.
The Heir Apparent
This is a particularly painful moment for Vance, for a
couple of reasons. First, Vance has long conducted his foreign policy arguments by means of
scorched-earth ad hominem rhetoric that personalizes every argument, never
allows for the possibility of good-faith disagreement uncorrupted by bad
motives, and is especially aggressive in attacking Republicans and
conservatives — not only individually but in terms that make plain his loathing
for anyone who holds positions that have a long and deep base of support on the
right and in the GOP. That rhetorical style is distinguished by its lack of an
exit strategy: Having deployed it, there’s no way to justify changing one’s
mind, no path to agreeing to disagree for the sake of party unity, and no
rationale to explain why two of your allies come to different conclusions
unless you are ready to burn bridges with one of them.
I grant that there are quite a few people who have come
honestly and sincerely by the view that war is so terrible, and its effects so
unpredictable, that we should allow all sorts of other horrors to occur rather
than initiate it. I accept that some pundits may not extend any charity towards
their adversaries. But political leaders are usually more willing to accept
that voters who are not on their side on everything might be sincere, and might
even be potential supporters. Vance does not.
Vance starts off with the pole position to be the next
leader of the Republican Party in 2028 (assuming he does not become president
by misadventure before then), but his is a path few have successfully navigated; a one-term vice
president hasn’t succeeded his boss since Martin Van Buren in 1836. The
non-negotiable prerequisite for Vance is to remain in favor with Trump, and
while Trump prefers to make Vance keep working for that approval, he’s
thus far been in no danger of losing it. But while Vance is a dissenter from even the Trump-era GOP mainstream on a
number of fronts, foreign policy is the area in which he is most vociferously
harsh toward a big chunk of the party’s voting base and its elected officials.
His rhetorical style leaves no room to make peace with them, and he shows no sign of doing so. He recently attacked
one critic on Twitter/X as a “loser (who supported Desantis in the 2024
primary),” a sign of how quick Vance is to write people out of the party for
insufficient personal loyalty to Trump — even and perhaps especially people who
have fought tirelessly for conservative causes and championed successful
Republican leaders.
In order to square the circle of winning the nomination
while heaping abuse on those voters, the one thing Vance absolutely cannot
afford is a breach between Trump and the Tucker Carlson foreign policy crowd,
with whom Vance is so close that he hired Carlson’s son for his staff. But right now, that’s
exactly where we are, which has put Vance in the highly uncomfortable position
of trying to sell a stance that he would denounce if it came from anyone but
Trump, and spin that as anti-interventionism:
First, POTUS has been amazingly
consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Over the
last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with the
Iranians to accomplish this goal. The president has made clear that Iran cannot
have uranium enrichment. And he said repeatedly that this would happen one of
two ways–the easy way or the “other” way. . . .
Iran could have civilian nuclear
power without enrichment, but Iran rejected that. Meanwhile, they’ve enriched
uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose . . . enriching
right to the point of weapons-grade uranium. I have yet to see a single good
argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for
civilian use. . . .
Meanwhile, the president has shown
remarkable restraint in keeping our military’s focus on protecting our troops
and protecting our citizens. . . . People are right to be worried about foreign
entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe
the president has earned some trust on this issue.
Of course, the horseshoe crowd isn’t buying any of this,
and like Vance, they tend not to frame arguments in terms that allow for good
faith disagreement. Vance telling them to trust “the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a rightwing organization,” is not going
to endear him to the right-wing restrainer types, who hate and mistrust
international organizations. Like Democrats trying to navigate the Gaza war,
Vance is already in a bind, plus he has to go wherever Trump leads. Thus far,
unlike Tulsi Gabbard, he has avoided signaling that he’s at odds
with where Trump is headed. The likely result of that would be, as with
Gabbard, getting ignored and cut out of the loop.
That may be the shrewder move for Vance’s positioning,
although it doesn’t fix the long-term problem of needing to keep Carlson and
his ilk from taking out their frustrations at Trump on Vance. This is one of
the worst possible fights for the restrainer faction to pick. For some time
now, even many who define themselves as anti-interventionists (such as Vance)
have made something of an exception for backing Israel, in part due to its
long-term ethnic, cultural, and religious ties to the American electorate and
in part out of the perception that Israel is typically capable of handling its
enemies with minimal American assistance. Moreover, Iran’s current regime has
been a noisy and lethal enemy of the United States unceasingly for 45 years.
For now, at least, Republicans and the general public are apt to side strongly with Trump and with Israel, isolating
both the restrainers on the right and the progressive doves on the left. That
may be a particularly bitter pill for the former group, who entered this
administration hoping to run American foreign policy for the first time in
living memory.
No comments:
Post a Comment