Friedman Chooses Politics Over America, Excuses Iran

This piece argues that some prominent Democrats and commentators have put partisan dislike for President Trump ahead of national interests in the conflict with Iran, questions the motives behind their criticism, highlights strong U.S. military performance so far, and points to public polling showing continued support for key war aims.

Thomas Friedman’s remark that “the problem is I really don’t want to see Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump politically strengthened by this war because they are too awful human beings” captured a troubling instinct: preferring political damage to a president over a clear-cut strategic victory. That sentiment hints at a readiness to accept setbacks if they weaken Trump, and that is deeply unpatriotic when American lives and global security are on the line. Conservatives see quickly through this: foreign policy should not serve as a scoreboard for domestic grudges.

The Democrats’ reflex to demoralize a wartime effort isn’t limited to op-eds. Leading voices in the party have dismissed the mission’s legitimacy even though U.S. policy for decades has aimed to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Words from the past—promises to act against a nuclear-armed Iran—were treated as mere rhetoric until one president took the political risk to follow through.

When House Democratic leadership attacks veterans and service members’ supporters with snide political jabs, it undercuts morale at home. Consider Hakeem Jeffries’s zinger about Pete Hegseth: “This guy can’t organize a two-car funeral…no wonder things are turning out so horrifically.” Mocking those who serve or those who back decisive action is a low political move that sends the wrong signal to families with loved ones in uniform.

Senate Minority Leader Schumer calling the commander-in-chief a “military moron” has been echoed by other critics who tally the cost of the campaign but ignore its strategic gains. Political leaders can complain about spending while also acknowledging that U.S. objectives—especially preventing Iran’s nuclear breakout—are existential and long-standing. Bipartisan talk is easy when the conflict is abstract; making hard decisions is what separates rhetoric from leadership.

ONE MONTH AT WAR WITH IRAN — CAN WASHINGTON DEFINE VICTORY?

Facts on the battlefield tell their own story: U.S. forces have struck Iran’s naval and air capabilities, degraded missile sites, and done so with relatively few American casualties for an operation of this scale. That is a testament to planning, intelligence, and execution, not to political luck. To call the operation a failure while enemy capabilities are visibly eroded is to ignore the balance of military reality versus political theater.

Democrats pushing removal of the president via the 25th Amendment reveal either ignorance of constitutional mechanics or a willingness to weaponize legalese for partisan ends. The amendment requires the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to act, a scenario that is neither plausible nor credible on the current record. Such theatrics further politicize national security at a dangerous moment.

TEVI TROY: TRUMP FACES THE BURDENS OF A WARTIME PRESIDENCY

The liberal press hasn’t helped. Repeated narratives that the war has no strategy or that the president is the “war’s biggest loser” chip away at home-front resolve and encourage Tehran to dig in. Reports that frame American action as incompetent can be read in Tehran as political leverage, convincing adversaries that sustained pressure will collapse under domestic objections rather than policy success.

Iran’s leaders posture like victors even as their forces are crippled and their command structure hides behind written notes to avoid electronic detection. Their bravado masks fear: conventional forces battered, naval assets diminished, and key installations hit. The remaining threats, like small missile boats and drones, are real but do not equal victory for a regime that has already been materially degraded.

Public polling complicates the opposition’s narrative. “Big and bipartisan majorities” still back goals such as opening the Strait of Hormuz, making sure Iran’s people are “safe and secure”, stopping Iran from threatening other countries and “permanently stop[ping] Iran’s nuclear programs.” A majority even rejects ending the fight with the current regime in place, which underscores that Americans see this conflict as essential, not optional.

Patriots across party lines want a secure America and a Middle East where nuclear blackmail is impossible. When political leaders choose partisan scoring over national security, they risk being judged harshly by history for undermining an effort that aims to prevent far greater harm. If victory comes, those who rooted against it will be seen as having put politics ahead of country.