Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned — or a progressive suffering from TDS.
The latest uproar involving President Trump is about his post on Truth Social in which he threatened to wipe out the entire Persian civilization:
This came after “Bridge and Power Plant Day”, an announcement which, as so often with Trump’s wild statements, became a whole meme fest in and of itself. That man will never cease to be entertaining, whatever one thinks of his policies.
It didn’t take long for the chattering classes to be up in arms about the Truth Social post. Ro Khanna, Congressman from California, said: “Threatening war crimes is a blatant violation of our constitution and the Geneva Conventions,” and he also stated that “we” need to invoke the 25th Amendment (as if his rabble in Congress can do anything to initiate that process). Via Politico, Senator Chuck Schumer wrote that “This is an extremely sick person.” The Politico report goes on to say that, “In a separate joint statement with Schumer, the ranking members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees called Trump’s threats a “war crime.””
Is the mere threat of wiping out a civilization now a war crime? Or would said threat have to be executed first to drag Trump out of office and before the International Criminal Court (the wet dream of every lefty worldwide)?
It’s one thing for opposition politicians to do what they do best — attempting to stir up public resistance to the guy in power — but the huffing and puffing was decidedly not limited to Democrats in Congress. Here is Retired Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson on CNN: “I’m old enough to remember the Nuremberg trials and how we’ve held the Germans accountable after what they — the atrocities they committed during World War II. And I’d hate to think, you know, five, 10 years from now, we’d be doing the same kind of thing with American soldiers and leaders that made decisions that were being directed by the president of the United States that are illegal.”
Ah yes, the obligatory Nazi reference. On Dutch television, Dutch foreign policy expert (and noted wine connoisseur) Rob de Wijk put it on the table too by comparing Trump’s statement to “texts from Hitler,” while his female interlocutor nodded along and expressed her agreement.
Trump has been in (and out of) office for nine years now, and still these people have not learned the lesson that hyperbole is the name of the game with this president. The same explosion of outrage occurred after his “cats and dogs” comment and his “threat” to annex Greenland by force. The hyperbole is often, and certainly in this case, part of the deal-making process. It’s described in Trump’s own book, which few of them will ever bother to read.
Being, presumably, deep thinkers on these matters, the aforementioned gentlemen might have been able to discern this pattern in Trump’s behavior after a near decade of observing it. After all, we’re not talking about high school girls spouting off on TikTok here, but grown people whose job it is to make sense of the foreign and security policy of the United States.
Assuming they do understand this, and knowing Trump has made many prior statements in direct support of the Iranian people and has encouraged them to rise up against the regime, wouldn’t it be reasonable to also assume that Trump was exaggerating here and wouldn’t risk alienating these very crowds by ruthlessly and indiscriminately targeting civilian centers (unlike the regime itself and the terror proxies it props up, we might add)? Can we not reasonably infer that Trump’s goal is to rain down hell upon the religious fanatics in power, and not upon the Iranians at large? And can we not expect these “experts” to be able to discern this nuance from all the noise?
And for that matter, since when are bridges and power plants solely civilian targets off limits under the Geneva Convention?
The Retired Brigadier General also had this to say: “I mean, [Trump] continues to vacillate — offers contradictory messaging about what’s going on and does he support the Iranian people? Does he not? Does he support regime change? Does he not? Are the allies with us? Does he need them? It goes on and on and on.”
Well, Mr. Anderson, what would you assume the mullahs fear most? Trump’s erratic behavior, his bombs and missiles landing on their assets and indeed their very heads, and his threats that every bridge and power plant will be next if they don’t start complying, which if executed would bring their rule to the brink? Or President Biden whispering “Don’t” into a microphone? Isn’t the constant vacillating and issuing threats (only a minor portion of which have historically ever been carried out, by the way) the entire point? The Iranian theocracy is not a child in grade school in need of clarity and structure, but a mortal enemy of the West which needs to be made to behave or be eliminated altogether. Trump’s unpredictability on the international stage is arguably his greatest asset. What part of this is so difficult to understand?
This apocalyptic regime does not reason in the same way we would in a similar situation. The mullahs are not in it to come to some kind of power sharing agreement, much less a deal in which they concede power altogether and spend the rest of their lives bathing in wealth in Russian exile. A ceasefire agreement is not a contract for them to honor, but a perceived weakness on the part of the West for them to leverage and use to regroup. The language they understand all too well, however, is that of tough talk paired with disproportional violence raining down on their sweaty turbans.
There are only two ways in which this war could successfully end: 1) Inflict so much pain on the regime that it will comply with our demands out of desperation; or 2) Weaken the regime to such an extent that the Iranians will rise up and bring it down. Note that both of these outcomes involve the use of heavy force.
Most of us would loathe to see the U.S. embark upon another ground occupation which could commit our forces for a decade or more. But I have to say that the idea of punitive expeditions to bring nuisance dictatorships like this one to their knees sounds like music to my ears. And if Trump succeeds in removing the Iranian regime—and those of Cuba and Venezuela as well—he will enter the pantheon alongside Roosevelt and Reagan as one of the great modern presidents who transformed the entire world for the better. The present moment could be pivotal.
The first win, though, should be for our chattering classes to get their TDS under control and not let it cloud their judgement.
The Free Dutchman 