Trumpenfreude

Programming Note: I’ll be on The Morning Meeting with Mark Halperin at 9:00 a.m. ET this morning.

Trump•en•freu•de /noun/: Finding pleasure in the misery of Iran hawks watching Donald Trump fulfill their dreams.

Trita Parsi is an advocate for Iran who, along with Ben “Hamas” Rhodes, will be bringing the Congressional Progressive Caucus this week on how to oppose Mr. Trump’s war in Iran. Parsi is at the Quincy Institute, which has long been suspected of being Iranina regime funded, though proof does not exist of that.

Back during the Obama era of 2012, Bill Kristol went on MSNBC to call for Obama to support the Iranian people. Parsi blasted Kristol.

“President Obama says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. The real and credible threat of force is probably the last hope of persuading the Iranian regime to back down. So: Isn't it time for the president to ask Congress for an Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iran's nuclear program?” Kristol wrote in 2012 in the now-defunct Weekly Standard, calling on Congress to authorize the use of force against Iran.

Kristol also oversaw the Weekly Standard publication of a 5,000+ word piece in defense of attacking Iran written by Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. The piece, like Kristol’s, is sadly no longer online. Of all places, Media Matters has a snippet of Kristol’s piece.

Kristol, a man who long fought for the American government to overthrow Iran, is now blasting the effort to do so because Donald Trump is in charge of it. He and Iranian stooge Trita Parsi are on the same side.

“We don’t expect the Obama administration to request an Authorization for Use of Military Force. But Congress can act without such a request. By doing so, it would serve the nation’s interest, and, indeed, the administration’s, if the administration means what it says,” Kristol once wrote in defense of overthrowing Iran. Now, he claims the effort makes America unsafe.

It’s not just Kristol who advocated for the overthrow of Iran, now bitter that Trump is the one doing it.

“[Israel]...will at some point be forced to take military action, unless [the Obama administration] undergo[es] an epiphany and reverse[s] course. War is a horrid prospect, as is the potential for massive loss of life -- but not as horrid as that of a nuclear-armed Iran,” wrote Jen Rubin in 2010. Rubin is now advancing the notion that Iran was no imminent threat.

Max Boot once compared Iran to North Korea and opposed Barack Obama’s Iran Deal. Boot long favored a much more robust and aggressive response to the Iranian mullahs. Now, Boot insists this war with Iran is unnecessary.

It’s just fascinating to watch the long-time Iran hawks get their heart’s desire, but because it is Donald Trump doing it, they are miserable. This reminds me of Rubin and the American Embassy in Israel. She long maintained that it should be moved to Jerusalem and blasted repeated Republican betrayals to move it. Once Trump moved the embassy, Rubin blasted Trump for doing so, claiming it could destabilize the region.

Compare these Iran Hawks with another person who is genuinely, not performatively, opposed to Donald Trump.

Of the 47th President, he has written, “Given Trump’s gargantuan exercises of executive discretion regarding great matters of state, it might seem quaint to wonder why he cannot be stopped from treating Washington as his chew toy. This would be unworthy of our nation if he had exquisite taste. The fact that he revels in being a vulgarian takes a toll on the nation’s soul.”

And, “The president probably agrees with the wit who said that the trouble with facts is that there are so many of them.”

And, “Donald Trump, who often makes even defensible actions grating, acted on the White House with unapologetic unilateralism.”

Yesterday, that noted Trump critic with a long and consistent record of criticism, George Will, wrote,

The U.S. action for regime change in Iran is not sufficient to produce regional tranquility. It is, however, a necessity for beginning to reestablish a precondition for a more peaceable world: the credibility of U.S. deterrence.

A nadir of post-1945 U.S. power — and its precondition, confidence — was the 1975 departure of the last helicopter from the U.S. Embassy roof in Saigon. A second low point was reached when Barack Obama drew, in 2012, and then ignored a red line (concerning Syrian chemical weapons). A third was in 2021 when Joe Biden produced a chaotic exitfrom Afghanistan.

Today, Vladimir Putin is watching Venezuela, Iran (a source of some of Putin’s drones) and soon, perhaps, Cuba, join Syria as vanished clients. The swiftness of their downfall illustrates the hollowness of Russia’s claim to be a formidable global actor.

Today’s world, where the velocity of information and the capability of weaponry annihilate distances and compress time, resembles an Alexander Calder mobile: a disturbance here translates into disturbance over there. In one of history’s stranger caroms, Oct. 7 led to regime change at Harvard and other universities, and forced a U.S. reckoning with antisemitism’s infection of both extremities of the political spectrum.

There are people on both sides who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Some can abide no criticism of Trump and will justify, rationalize, or excuse anything he does. Then there are those like Kristol, Rubin, Boot, etc., who are willing to abandon their long held ideas and ideals because they hate Trump so much, they’d rather be miserable than support him carrying out their heart’s desires.

In an insane world, be more like George Will — consistent in ideals, willing even to praise those you might not like who do the right thing.

The President is doing a marvelous thing in Iran. The Iranian people are in the streets of Tehran waving, not burning, American flags as the regime’s buildings burn in the background. This is a good thing. No, it is not regime change. It is also not a forever war. The talking points of the press, refined in the fires of Iraqi oil fields in the early turn of the twenty-first century, need to be updated.

If 84-year-old George Will can recognize what is happening, the thirty-something producers at the news networks of America should be able to as well.