Staff Reports
The media circus surrounding President Donald Trump’s relationship with Iran continues to provide more entertainment than a season finale of a Hollywood reality show. Yesterday, he was portrayed as a tyrant looking to rain down fire and fury, and today, he’s a taco—a metaphor for his alleged retreat from his hardline stance. The left, ever eager to criticize, seems confused about whether they want peace or a good old-fashioned war, just as long as Trump stands in opposition.
The Democrats have lambasted President Trump for his aggressive rhetoric aimed at Iran, yet they seem to be spinning in circles trying to decide if backing down—also known as diplomacy or, in some circles, as being “chicken”—is actually a bad thing. Trump’s critics argue he spouted genocidal language, borrowing from the playbook of infamous dictators, when he threatened to annihilate entire civilizations. Apparently, promising peace and threatening war are two sides of the same tyrannical coin, at least where Trump is concerned.
Ironically, this is also a regime that has been a tormentor of its own people for decades, with a resume that includes hosting foreign hostages and using dastardly methods against its own citizenry. Now, even Democrats appear to agree the Iranian regime is not a boy scout convention, especially after pictures surfaced showing appalling treatments by the IRGC against everyday Iranians. But the media headline, as always, is that Trump’s the villain, never mind the atrocities the Mullas commit daily.
There’s a curious suggestion floating among Democrats that Trump’s brash language—which might not suit a cotillion—somehow achieved a ceasefire. So, is conquering peace in 38 days such a terrible thing? If using tough language can end conflicts without prolonged military presence, maybe it’s not the worst tactic. Over the past few weeks, the United States military, praised for their precision and effectiveness, took significant actions against the Iranian military capabilities. Yet, the talk of Trump potentially being a warmonger remains in the news cycle, reminiscent of attempts to stick a label on someone using a glue stick running on empty.
The ever-present debate now sees an overflow of discussions about gender pronouns in the military. We’ve reached a point where identifying one’s gender seems to outweigh identifying threats to national security. The never-ending critique of speech policing distracts from the actual work being done to maintain global safety. As the Democrats flirt with the idea of wielding the 25th Amendment like a magic wand to remove a duly elected president, it reeks of a strategy grounded more in desperation than in constitutional integrity. While the Trump administration continues to capably deal with serious international threats, it’s unfortunate that part of the domestic conversation remains tangled up in a carnival of politically-correct rhetoric.
