Democrat Party Blinded by Hate

Trump Is Not the TACO President 

That demeaning acronym stands for “Trump always chickens out.” It blossomed out of his about-face tariff negotiations.

In Iran, however, he was the FAFO president. That acronym stands for “F*^k Around and Find Out.” Although there is “no Persian translation, the Ayatollah got the message anyway,” explains Charles Lipson in Spectator, US.

The big questions:  (1) How destructive were the bombings of three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, and (2) was the uranium moved from Fordow before the bombs fell? Other pertinent questions remain.

Isn’t America threatened by Iranian sleeper cells, perhaps hidden among the more than 700 Iranians whom the Biden administration released into the American interior after they crossed the border illegally? That’s not the only threat, explains Charles Lipson in The Spectator, US.

We have no idea how many terrorists are among the 2 million “got aways” who were seen on surveillance cameras crossing the border but never apprehended.

Those are serious questions about serious threats, and they deserve thoughtful, bipartisan inquiry.

Americans won’t receive a bipartisan inquiry from Democrats, grieves Mr. Lipson.

Democrats have already begun blustering, almost gleefully, that America’s bombing in Iran wasn’t as successful as Trump claimed. True, Trump is not known for understatement. He claimed all three Iranian sites were “obliterated.”

Democrats are furious that their intelligence briefings have been postponed until Thursday and Friday, when the Secretaries of Defense and State will return from the NATO summit in the Netherlands. They (claim) that the bombing itself was unconstitutional because the President never consulted Congress or received explicit authorization, a claim they never made when Democratic administrations conducted extensive overseas military operations.

Also troubling is the Defense Intelligence Agency, which just leaked a highly classified report stating that the destruction at Fordow is incomplete. Perhaps it is incomplete, concedes Lipson, but it is unconscionable, given all the intelligence agencies did to undermine the first Trump administration, that the DIA is leaking these secret findings.

Lipson advises readers to step back a moment to sniff the miasma of these partisan attacks.

They reveal a reflexive hatred of Trump, not a serious evaluation of the costs, risks, and uncertainties associated with Trump’s limited intervention in Iran.

Wouldn’t you think all Americans, regardless of political affiliations, would praise the extraordinary skill, precision, technological sophistication, and intelligence that characterized the Israeli military operation which preceded the American attack on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan?

The US operation built on Israel’s success in demolishing the military assets of a country ten times its size. Worthy of praise by all Americans, or so you would think. But no. The hatred of Israel is a North Star on the Far Left, and the Far Left is the heart of the Democratic Party’s base.

It shouldn’t be just MAGA voters who appreciate President Trump’s decision, including the prudence, restraint, and positive impact on US deterrence around the world (especially in Asia).

The President refrained from using America’s vast military might prematurely or precipitously. He did everything he could to avoid endangering US troops currently stationed in the Middle East and US citizens at home.

Lipson categorizes what Trump did before taking military action:

• Trump gave a clear, unambiguous message to Iran.

He would not tolerate their effort to build nuclear weapons, not from a theocratic, revolutionary regime that repeatedly threatened to use them against America and Israel. Previous presidents had mouthed the same words but done little to back them up. In several cases, they actively appeased the Islamic regime and fattened its bank account. Tehran used the money to build a vast terror network of proxies around the Middle East, a network the Israelis have now largely destroyed.

• (Trump’s) Message carried the credible threat of military action and severe economic sanctions.

Iran should have understood that after Trump’s directive to kill Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The fact that Iran didn’t believe Trump would use force this time is a testament to their unlimited goals and catastrophic judgment, grounded in religious zealotry.

• Falling into their own trap, Iran’s mistakes intensified.

Supporting the proxy attacks on Jewish civilians that began on October 7, 2023, starting with Hamas and quickly followed by Hezbollah and the Houthis.

These attacks led Israel to make a fundamental strategic decision: that their safety depended on annihilating Iran’s proxy armies and then confronting Iran itself. One mark of Israel’s extraordinary success is the silence of those proxies in Iran’s hour of need.

Iran is now alone on the world scene. A silent China and Russia are proving to be Iran’s erstwhile allies. Perhaps the new reality of the Middle East, notes Lipson, is how the Islamic regime’s power has sharply diminished, and Israel’s has sharply increased. The power shift should have been recognized when Iran ignored Trump’s explicit signal, which gave Tehran two months to negotiate a peaceful end to their nuclear-weapons program.

A stalling Iran, believing that they could string out the Trump administration and its ally in Jerusalem, made yet another catastrophic miscalculation.

On Day 61 the Israeli Defense Forces struck with Trump’s (secret) permission.

After the IDF struck, Trump still publicly sought negotiations with Iran. Again, Iran stalled. They announced that they would refuse to talk with America or its intermediaries until Israel stopped its military campaign. Yet another mistake. Trump responded by saying he wouldn’t ask Israel to stop. Again, Iran stalled.

The Ties that Bind Democrats

After giving Iran repeated chances to negotiate a peaceful end to its nuclear-weapons ambitions, Trump authorized the B-2s to hit three Iranian nuclear weapons facilities.

If you’re thinking that all Americans would understand the security threat posed by Iran or how Trump sought to negotiate before fighting, you’d be wrong.

If you thought a Democratic Party, now built upon Trump hatred, would at least grant that our country is safer for having significantly set back the nuclear ambitions of a terrorist regime. (Wrong.)

If you thought Trump’s domestic adversaries would recognize that he accomplished his principal goals in Iran without committing ground troops or billions of dollars, (Wrong.)

A party now animated by a frenzied loathing for Donald Trump cannot assess his policies individually. (Democrats) loathe every action (Trump) takes because they loathe (Trump). It is the tie that binds (Democrats).

Trump’s Success vs Biden’s Failures

Among what Democrats bungled in distinguishing Trump’s successes from his failures is recognizing the success (perhaps only partial) in Iran.

• Because (Dems) know (Trump’s) success there contrasts so sharply with Biden’s failure.
• Because they know how deeply their activist base and left-wing donors hate Israel, which coordinated closely with Trump in this successful operation.
• Because, ultimately, the Democrats have been captured by their extreme left-wing faction. The Party’s center-left, its best hope of winning national elections, have not figured out how to resume leadership and redirect the party without losing their zealous base.

Lacking a clear leader and a positive message. The unifying message amongst Democrats is “Trump bad,” which quickly morphs into “everything (Trump) does is bad,” continues Lipson.

Democrats are still locked into the wrong side of many 80-20 issues simply by taking positions that most voters endorse.

Democrats trap themselves by refusing to assess specific policy choices, independent of their general hatred for Trump.

On the other hand, Republicans tend to be reflexive, especially when they summarize every issue in three words, Trump is Great.”

In marginalizing the center-right Bush faction, Trump has captured the GOP.

Reflexive partisanship on issue after issue, however, comes at a price.

The latest is the lack of any objective assessment of the damage done to Iranian capabilities after the two-week war. Such an assessment requires calm judgment and serious discussion, in private, among dissenting views.

Good luck, dreams a vexed Lipson, finding that in Washington today.