If you’re unaware, the other day, Iran allegedly shot down an unmanned US drone.
In response, the bloodthirsty neocons, who unfortunately have infested the Trump White House, who have long been in control of the Pentagon–and, well, who are we kidding: basically the entire Washington Foreign Policy Establishment–prepared a “response” for the President to approve. It would have been an airstrike on Iranian soil, or “interests” or something, I’m not entirely sure. I believe it was a ship.
It was some form of retaliation that would have killed 150 Iranians, bottom line.
Listen to the President himself describe it:
Trump canceled the proposed airstrike at the last second because it would have killed 150 people. Simply unnecessary.
Remember in 2016 when All The Smart People In Washington™ said Trump was too stupid, too unhinged, too maniacal to be the Commander in Chief? Remember when they said Trump would blow up the world because the role of Commander in Chief would just be too overwhelming for him?
His presidency has been the exact opposite of what they described.
Trump is the one hesitant to use military force whereas the self-described Foreign Policy Experts™ are the ones chomping at the bit to bomb somebody every other week.
So cooler heads–meaning President Trump–prevailed: 150 Iranians didn’t have to die because their military shot one of our flying unmanned robots out of the sky.
And Ben Shapiro is not a happy camper about it!
I haven’t seen Ben Shapiro this worked up in quite a while.
Of all the issues that really touch a nerve for Ben, President Trump not bombing Iran is the one that sends him into fits.
I’ll repeat: not bombing Iran.
“Terrorism”? What “terrorism,” Ben?
Iran’s military shot down one of our military’s flying drones. It was not “terrorism.”
And what’s this about “disproportionate response”? What he’s talking about is massive retaliation. Iran shoots down one of our drones, we kill 150 of their soldiers. An arm for an eye. In one sentence Ben says we must pursue a policy of “disproportionate response” in order to show Iran we’re not to be messed with, yet in the next sentence Ben says the Iranian mullahs are quite aware that if they get into a full-on war with the US then they’re all dead, and hence don’t want war.
So if they’re already scared of us, why on earth would we need a “disproportionate response” policy to remind them that they should be scared of us?
Ben retweeted this:
Obama’s “red line” was different. With his “red line,” he said, “Syria, if you use chemical weapons, that’s something we won’t tolerate.” And then when Assad used chemical weapons–or at least our military intelligence said he did–Obama didn’t enforce his own “red line” pronouncement. When you say, “Don’t do that, or there’ll be consequences.” And then they do that and there are no consequences, you look like a chump.
That was what was so bad about Obama’s “red line,” although in hindsight it’s probably good that Obama balked at attacking Syria because there has never been any good reason for us to get involved there. Not now, not in 2013–not ever.
But this was no “red line” moment for Trump on Iran. Trump never said, “Iran, you better not shoot down any US drones or else you’re gonna pay.” There was never any proverbial “red line” drawn by Trump.
But of course, Shapiro and the neocons hope to goad Trump into taking military action against Iran by comparing Trump to Obama. “If you don’t go to war with Iran, you’re a big pussy just like Obama.”
Shapiro had more tweets expressing his displeasure with Trump not bombing Iran–I repeat not bombing Iran.
But as I said above, what was really interesting was that Trump not bombing Iran was the one thing that really set Ben Shapiro off unlike anything else in recent memory. I don’t remember Shapiro launching into angry, stream-of-consciousness tweetstorms over the record number of foreign
invaders migrants streaming over the Southern Border. Or about the mainstream media trying to normalize pedophilia, among many other things.
No, on those things he really couldn’t be bothered. He might put out a carefully-crafted zinger tweet that will go viral, but that’s it.
In this case–again, Trump not bombing Iran–Ben Shapiro just could not contain himself. Trump not bombing Iran really touched a nerve for him. You can tell he’s genuinely upset about this.
When Ben Shapiro read the news that President Trump called off a planned airstrike of Iran at the last minute, he was furious. The guy who treats the President like a dog was probably angrily screeching “BAD TRUMP! BAD TRUMP!” when he learned that Trump would not be bombing Iran.
It really is amazing to see just how little Neocons like Ben Shapiro care about the lives of others. Trump was not willing to kill 150 Iranians because their military shot down a drone. Ben, on the other hand, couldn’t have been more gung-ho to kill those 150 people.
The worst part of it is, our country has been run by reckless, bloodthirsty psychopaths like this for the better part of the past 30 years. Not only do 150 Iranian lives mean absolutely nothing to them, they don’t care about American lives, either. Ben Shapiro will gladly send your son off to fight in a pointless Middle Eastern war. He and the Neocon crowd don’t give a shit about American lives, either.
I’m not sure, exactly, why Ben Shapiro is so gung-ho about going to war with Iran. The same question could be asked of a large number of people not only in Washington but within the Trump White House, in the “mainstream” media and last but not least, within the “mainstream conservative movement.”
We don’t need to go to war with Iran. Saying that might put me outside the “mainstream” of conservative opinion but whatever.
Are we endangered by Iran? No. I keep hearing that Iran is the “number-one exporter of terror around the world since 1979” but if I recall correctly 9/11 was carried out by Saudis. More recent terror attacks carried out on US soil were linked to ISIS, not Iran.
Iran might be the number-one exporter of terror worldwide but not in the US. Iran is not a direct threat to us. It might be a direct threat to other countries in the region, but I’m sorry, that’s just not our problem.
I think I speak for most Americans when I say I have absolutely zero appetite for another multi-trillion dollar war in a faraway country that’s going to claim the lives of not only several thousand of America’s best young men, but also the lives of hundreds of thousands–if not millions–of people in Iran, and which will turn millions into refugees overnight. And where will those refugees go? Europe? Will they come here?
I don’t want to destabilize another Middle Eastern regime and turn Iran into a power vacuum where ISIS can reestablish itself.
I just don’t really give a damn about the Middle East. In fact, things seemed to be going a lot better in the Middle East before we started messing around there in the past 40 years or so.
I may speak for most Americans on this matter but because I’m at odds with the Political & Media Establishment–which Ben Shapiro is very much a part of, no matter what anyone says–then I’m considered a “fringe voice” and even anti-American.
Isolationist and proud.
Tucker, as usual, is on point:
Firstly, if Iran had a drone off the coast of the US, and we shot it down – of course it would be considered self-defense. The idea that we are the bully in THEIR backyard, and we are now the aggrieved party? Only in the mind of a NeoCon!
All one needs to do is go back to Gen. Wesley Clark talking about “7 countries in 5 years”.
Right. It’s amazing that you can get branded “anti-American” if you think Iran had every right to shoot down one of our drones that was in their backyard.