Axis of Bad: Many of the Very Worst People Are United Against Trump's Iran Strikes

'If [fill in the blank] is upset, that must be a good sign.' We've all heard some variation of this political argument before. It's negative partisanship, distilled. I typically find such reductive pronouncements to be unhelpful and intellectually sloppy, but on occasion, they can be helpful and illustrative. President Trump's decision to strike a trio of the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons facilities presents a scenario in which the coalition of opposition helps make the case for why it was the right call. There are some people with good-faith and thoughtful reasons they're against, or at least skeptical of, that American operation. But a broader, cursory examination of those who are most virulently angry about it (excluding many of the worst regimes across the globe) reveals a veritable murderer's row of the Chronically Wrong and the Fundamentally Bad. I'd go so far as to say that if this exact group were to be collectively arrayed one one side of an issue of consequence, I'd likely find myself on the opposite side of them 99 times out of 100, if not all 100.

Let's start with Students for Justice in Palestine, a deranged, anti-American, pro-terrorism hate group that openly celebrated the terrorists' slaughter of 1,200 people on October 7, 2023, including dozens of Americans:

BREAKING: National Students for Justice in Palestine have released a statement on the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites — and it’s extreme.

They call for the end of America, defend Iran’s “right” to nuclear weapons, and accuse the U.S. of being a malicious propagandist.

Full… pic.twitter.com/MC8iRPAYUC
— Stu (@thestustustudio) June 22, 2025

Naturally, the pro-terrorism hate group CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is on the same page:

Context: This vile, pro-terrorism hate group’s leader openly and publicly praised the October 7th slaughter of 1,200 people, including dozens of Americans https://t.co/4L4sFSYt3N
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 22, 2025

If CAIR and SJP had a member of Congress that best reflected their extremism, perhaps it would be Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, an anti-Semite. She is also extremely upset about the strikes:

Yep, and it's so f**king sick. https://t.co/alviixeGBn
— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) June 22, 2025

What's actually "so f**king sick" is behavior like this and this and this. It's who she is. Also, the idea that this is America versus "Muslims" is idiotic, in light of the tacit and demonstrable support Israel has received for its actions against Iran from multiple Arab states. There's a decent chance the peace accords between Israel and these Islamic countries could expand over the next few years. She's against this, too. Next, we have Zohran Mamdani, who one new poll suggests is the frontrunner in today's Democratic mayoral primary in New York City:

This guy is a defund-the-police radical who despises Israel approximately as much as he hates cops, whom he's called "wicked," racist, anti-queer and a public safety threat that must be dismantled. The police. He's also a Communist agitator. And as he seeks to run New York City, he's appeared with a fellow Muslim influencer who has publicly stated that America deserved the 9/11 atrocities. To twist the knife, he's enriching himself by selling t-shirts calling the 9/11 attacks an inside job. Big Mamdani fan, it seems, and vice versa:

Hasan wearing a "9/11 was an inside job" T-shirt while canvassing with a NYC Mayoral candidate.

If that isn't bad enough, Hasan also runs the store that sells it and modeled it. https://t.co/0iO7a4Ao6l pic.twitter.com/rCDV1hyHjJ
— Maya Luna (@envisionedluna) June 22, 2025

Then we have the worse-than-useless United Nations:

It took Antonio Guterres over 2 weeks to condemn the October 7 Massacre.

It took him less than 2 hours to condemn the destruction of the Islamist Regime’s nuclear ambitions.

Why is the USA still funding a pro-jihadist UN? https://t.co/X2DnujOyI5
— The Persian Jewess (@persianjewess) June 22, 2025

The UN's leader actually did condemn the massacre shortly after it happened, but quickly returned to Hamas apologias and Israel bashing, which is the organization's default setting. Let's turn to the Obama Bros, whose disastrous foreign policy legacy has been shredded before our eyes. Their posture was oriented around recklessly appeasing and enriching Iran's murderous 'death to America' regime. They hate Trump for many reasons, not the least of which is his correct decision to withdraw the US from Obama's terrible, weak, unilateral 'nuclear deal' during his first term. Watching Trump cripple Iran's rogue nuclear program is sending them around the bend (read this thread). Many conservatives are pointing out how incoherent these complaints are:

So what you’re saying is Iran will … go on behaving exactly as it has since 1979, just without the added threat of nuclear arms. https://t.co/ycy5zi0RLk
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) June 22, 2025

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people who would blow up buses filled with innocent civilians probably shouldn't have nukes. https://t.co/5ZFeHwhqbJ
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) June 22, 2025

Wow they seem dangerous thanks for giving them pallets of cash https://t.co/uNAvd043X6
— Michael Duncan (@MichaelDuncan) June 22, 2025

It’s funny how some guys only think about Blowback going one way.

Maybe Iran shouldn’t have funded Hamas and Hezbollah leading to October 7th!

Maybe they shouldn’t have killed all those Americans over the years!

Maybe WE’RE the blowback. https://t.co/oLwks3hj7D
— Logan Dobson (@LoganDobson) June 22, 2025

Here's a related chime-in from a fanatical Iran rapprochement fetishist whose hatred for Israel was so visceral and well-known that his own Obama administration coworkers literally nicknamed him 'Hamas:'

If your take is "I oppose Trump's fascism but support him lawlessly bombing this other country" maybe pause and give that a think.
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) June 22, 2025

"Lawlessly bombing" is rich, especially coming from this guy's foreign policy hand:

Flashback: Obama legal justification for bombing Libya

“The President had the constitutional authority to direct the use of military force in Libya because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest. Prior congressional approval was not…
— Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) June 22, 2025

Indeed:

Your guy presided over the rise of ISIS and then fecklessly bombed them in Syria, threatened to bomb Syria for its use of CW but the chickened out, bombed Libya (while leading from behind) to topple their regime, you might want to sit this one out https://t.co/VuRRtDh66N
— Marc Thiessen 🇺🇸❤️🇺🇦🇹🇼🇮🇱 (@marcthiessen) June 22, 2025

Unlike last night’s operation ordered by President Trump, I don’t think anything in the AUMF gave former President Obama, who was your boss, the authority to throw Hellfires from drones at American citizens.

Obama ordered a drone strike on a US citizen anyway.

Sit this one out. https://t.co/m455fweKEl
— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) June 22, 2025

Many Congressional Democrats are also hiding behind cynical 'no authorization' whinging. Presidents of both parties have been ordering airstrikes without prior Congressional approval for decades. Democrats have often praised these efforts, or at least stayed silent about them. But suddenly, they're sticklers for a 'principle' they either hold selectively, or not at all. These are unserious people who should be regarded as such. And the worse their judgment and instincts are on a host of issues, the more likely they are to come out against Trump's operation. The party's leadership on the Hill also seems flummoxed about how to react, reflexively reverting to the 'Trump Bad' line that their foaming-at-the-mouth demands:

My statement on Donald Trump’s unilateral military action in Iran. pic.twitter.com/2ZjZXlPbrl
— Hakeem Jeffries (@RepJeffries) June 22, 2025

NEW — Schumer, a longtime Iran hawk, comes out against Trump’s strikes, accusing POTUS of “erratic threats and no strategy”

Also announces he’ll support a War Powers vote pic.twitter.com/3dAmMiCdSP
— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) June 22, 2025

This would be the same Chuck Schumer who just days ago was trolling Trump for 'chickening out' and "folding" on Iran. How embarrassing:

Tonight this creep is attacking Trump for attacking Iran; earlier this month he was taunting Trump for negotiating with Iran. There is no brain left; there is just a partisan reflex. What Trump does is wrong; no other thoughts exist or are even necessary. https://t.co/crk9jD4768
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) June 22, 2025

Rounding out this awful coalition of 'no' are some naked anti-Semites on the far right whose fulminations are so unhinged that Iran's regime outlets are quoting them approvingly:

Nothing says "America First" like Candace and Nick Fuentes being featured on Iranian state television pic.twitter.com/u17DM7rLlj
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) June 22, 2025

Finally, I have a few words for the dirtbags who have seamlessly transitioned from Hamas sympathy and support to Iran sympathy and support:

Over the last decade or so, we’ve been treated to endless lectures on that subject from so-called progressives. These insufferable sermons are often some combination of tendentious, weaponized and antiquated. Recently, we’ve seen many of these same people — from the safety and comfort of free societies and tolerant cultures, in which they are imbued with a miraculous array of rights and protections — keyboard warrrioring on behalf of repressive, ass-backward regimes and terrorist groups. These people traffic in morally bankrupt, ignorant moral equivalencies, and outright lies, in order to drag down their own societies while glorifying theocratic tyrants. They do so while posturing as brave, “liberation”-minded dissidents engaging in “resistance”…the authentic versions of which are brutally crushed by their far-away heroes. It’s especially breathtaking seeing this from self-described queer activists, who embarrass themselves and discredit whatever cause they think they’re advancing. Tapping away on expensive electronic devices in the glow of freedom, while spouting off against capitalism and the values of said free society — and fetishizing heinous regimes they’ll never experience or live under? That is the definition of privilege. Check yours, lecturers.

I'll leave you with the New York Times keeping its eye on the ball, as always. Do I smell a Pulitzer?