As Israeli Defense Forces carried out a series of overnight strikes on Tehran, the world waits for President Trump to decide whether the U.S. will bomb the Islamic Republic’s principal nuclear installation.
The president says his decision will come sometime in the next two weeks, insisting that there is still a chance for a deal with the Mullahs, but breaking news is that the Mullahs have rejected President Trump’s overtures. But is there hidden brilliance in Trump’s delaying tactics?
Meanwhile, Douglas Murray writes that President Trump can end the nuclear threat from Iran with one call. Murray recalls that since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has exported terror all over the world. Murray writes:
President Trump’s campaign promise is that he will never allow Iran to have nukes.
The president’s only need is to make good on his promise to the American electorate.
If he does that, then he will send a sharp but necessary message to a regime that has too long threatened his own life, the life of Israel and indeed the world.
Is it as clear-cut as Murray suggests? In an exclusive report, the New York Post cites unnamed White House insiders who say that Trump fears that Iran might become another Libya. The Post observes:
The president in recent days has specifically mentioned the oil-rich North African country’s decade-long plunge into anarchy in 2011 — after the US joined a NATO bombing campaign to oust dictator Muammar Gaddafi — three sources close to the administration said.
Libya is not the only issue. The thing that is holding many Republicans back from full-throated support of U.S. strikes on the Fordow nuclear facility is (as the headline on Peggy Noonan’s all Street Journal column puts it) “Iraq’s shadow over the Iran debate.” You remember how that turned out. “Iran in 2025 Is Not Iraq 2003” is the headline on Robert Spencer’s PJ Media column. Spencer, who has written extensively on Islam, did not support the Iraq War. He writes:
And now, the idea that the Islamic regime in Iran could well be in its last days is giving a lot of people who style themselves “America First” the vapors. But Iran in 2025 is pretty much the polar opposite of Iraq in 2003. Saddam’s Iraq did not enforce Sharia; it was a secular state, which rankled many Muslim hardliners within the country….
In Iran today, on the other hand, people have been suffering under the rule of Islamic law for 46 years now. They’re so sick of it that a recent survey revealed the shocking fact that fewer than 40 percent of Iranians now identify as Muslim at all. The country was Western-oriented and secular before 1979, and many people still fondly recall those days, and have told their children about them.
Examiner Chief Political Correspondent Byron York asks two essential questions: Is a U.S. strike on Fordow really necessary, and will it work? The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel addresses “the ‘America First’ faceoff” over the pressing Iran question. Strassel argues that “the isolationists” made a mistake in taking a stand against a position most Americans support.
Meanwhile, an editorial in the same newspaper writes in the same vein. Coining the term “Iraq Syndrome,” the WSJ editors write:
The press is full of reporting on the “MAGA civil war” over Iran, but what’s notable is that the loudest isolationists appear to be losing the debate. It’s worth considering how they’ve misread the historical moment, the views of most Republicans, and above all President Trump….
Mr. Trump sees himself as a peacemaker, but that is no contradiction with wanting to deny a nuclear bomb to a theocratic Iranian regime. On that point he has been consistent since before he entered politics. The inconsistencies lie with the isolationists so traumatized by Iraq and Afghanistan that they would let a revolutionary regime go nuclear in the name of peace.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling upholding Tennessee’s ban on surgical and chemical castration for minors came down Wednesday, the day before Juneteenth. So we’re just getting around to this all-important ruling, which delivered a “major blow” to the activist transgender movement. Justice Clarence Thomas signed on to Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion but wrote a concurring opinion that demolished “the expert class”:
“First, so-called experts have no license to countermand the ‘wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.’ … Second, contrary to the representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children,” Thomas wrote. “Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts’ view that young children can provide informed consent to irreversible sex-transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that States must decide for themselves.
Meanwhile, a California Democrat whose daughter had toyed with the idea of “gender transition,” proclaimed herself “absolutely thrilled” with the high court’s ruling:
“We need to protect all the children in the United States, not just those who are lucky enough to live in Republican states,” she added.
New York’s Democratic primary is June 24th, and all eyes are upon anti-Israel radical socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mandani. The eyes of business leaders, especially, are on Mamdani because they wonder if, in the event of his election, it will be time to pull up stakes in Gotham. “It only takes a handful of successful people to leave to decimate the city’s tax base,” Bill Ackman told The Free Press. While Mamdani is getting the buzz, a Manhattan Institute poll has former Governor Andrew Cuomo ahead.
Did Nero Use Hair Gel: We now learn that America’s own Nero has repeated his French Laundry debacle by having a festive time at an exclusive wine tasting in Napa Valley while Los Angeles burned during the ICE riots. City Journal has the story:
In this instance, it was wine, rather than food, that caught Newsom’s attention. But the principle is the same: Newsom sips Cabernet while his state burns.
But Newsom has sorrows to drown: He lost to Trump on the National Guard issue.
Another powerful figure in Democratic politics, teachers’ union boss Randi Weingarten, has resigned her position at the Democratic National Committee. What? You didn’t realize that Weingarten, the power behind the school closures that led to learning loss for countless American children, was even a member of the DNC? The Washington Examiner has that story (“Randi Weingarten Exemplifies DNC and Union Corruption”):
Weingarten has evidently been a member of the DNC for the last 23 years, including serving on its Rules and Bylaws Committee. That fact is seemingly impossible to find in liberal media coverage of Weingarten prior to her resignation, even though Weingarten is the leader of the second-largest teachers union in the country….
To summarize, Weingarten served as a member of the DNC while her public union, which bargains against taxpayers, was funneling money to Democrats. For most of that time, Weingarten’s AFT was taking dues from people who did not want to pay them. All the while, Weingarten was directing CDC guidance. The corruption of the teachers’ union-Democratic Party relationship was in full swing, with Weingarten representing both sides.
For all the rants from Democrats about Republican “dark money” and the undue influence of groups such as the National Rifle Association, the DNC was happy with this corrupt relationship with Weingarten and her union. Evidently, so was liberal media, which made next-to-no mention of her DNC role and offered almost no pushback against her as she used her union and DNC influence to write CDC policy and keep schools closed.
The Wall Street Journal opinion pages are hot-hot this morning. Highly recommended are Heather Mac Donald’s “Is Rioting Acceptable? And If So, How Much?” and an editorial headlined “The Social Security Iceberg Gets Closer.” The estimates are for a 23% cut in Social Security and an 11% cut in Medicare in eight years if something is not done. Somebody needs to get to work on this.
