189
‘Worst foreign policy blunder in decades’: Republicans turn on Trump over Iran deal
(www.the-independent.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
189 points (98.5% liked)
politics
30109 readers
2517 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You voted for it.
People pointed out that Trump had tried to deny his own nephew health care. That he had ties to the New York Mafia. That he had boasted of perving on young women. That he had a history of catastrophic business failures. That he had a history of lying so bad his own lawyers had to double team him to get the facts...
... and they'll do it again!
MTG picked the perfect moment to leave Congress.
At this point, I have her as the front runner for the 2028 GOP nomination.
I don't think she'll ever make a serious bid at the presidency. She might throw her hat into the ring to grift and raise money but MAGA will never accept a woman as a leader and even the majority of conservatives think any white man is better than a competent woman or non-white individual.
Harris never won a primary and ended up Veep and a potential President.
Politics is a complicated game, and so far she's shown some good moves.
2028 is along way off. I am not counting anything out.
I guess we'll see. On the one hand she's a blithering idiot, which is a feature for the smoothbrains that vote Republican.
But on the other hand, she doesn't have a penis, which might make it really hard for the Nat-C types in her base to overcome. I mean, their own text prohibits women having dominion over men.
I've never spoken to her, or met anyone who has. But let's look at the facts.
She didn't just leave Congress. She waited until a point in the news cycle where she'd get a lot of notice. She gave up her office before being placed in a position to go against Trump in a realistic way [e.g. voting for impeachment.]
She's in a great position to be a TV pundit for the midterms, which means more money and more exposure.
For a nitwit, she's played some pretty cunning moves.
I mean, we've already seen them vote for and otherwise support women (including MTG herself) for political office, so it seems this "principle" is pretty flexible/unimportant compared to all the hateful shit they'd like to get up to.
True. That's why it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I saw some of them go ga-ga over Palin as potential VP, too. And she was just as gross and nasty and unqualified as MTG. And McCain was up there in years, and so him passing while being in office was not all that remote of a possibility.
It's possible that she was a factor in him losing that election, though.
I'm familiar enough with lots of conservatives and heard them talk about women holding power. Being a Rep is one thing, being President is quite another...I don't know who she ran against as far as Republicans, but she was from a R+19 district.
But ultimately, watching them try to balance "but she's a woman she should not rule over men" up against the truly awful and un-American and disgusting things she would likely try to bring about, for example, making this a "Christian nation" will be interesting.
That may very well apply here, too, but by "Nat-C", I was turning around Christian Nationalism and making it match, phonetically, the party that it most closely resembles.
If people are not already familiar with Christian Nationalism / New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and the plots and schemes of movements like the Seven Mountain Mandate, they should definitely brush up on it.
Marj is associated with Christian Nationalism and the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) by the way.
I find it rather alarming to see that some people seem to be platforming Marj (and Tucker, FFS!) just because she's criticizing PEDOnald on the Epstein thing and things like needless wars. Sure, a broken clock can be right twice a day, but people need to be very, very wary of people like her. Same goes for Tucker. I could see those two forming a ticket, by the way.
I haven't seen any polls that put her at double-digits.
I mean, half the joke is that they didn't vote for it. Trump has been outspokenly in opposition to wars abroad, in direct refutation to members of his own party (during the primary) and the opposition (during the general). American national politics is a sucking void of anti-war candidates, such that even a serial liar and shameless two-faced shit can fill it.
Incidentally, taking an anti-war tact is how Obama beat Hillary in 2008. And how he obliterated McCain several months later. And "Double Gitmo" Mitt Romney four years after that. It's also how Clinton beat Bush Sr in '92 (people hating Operation Desert Storm). And it was a long-forgotten part of the Bush Jr campaign against Gore (criticizing US involvement in East Africa and the Baltic States). Hell, Kennedy and LBJ both campaigned as anti-war candidates. They beat Nixon by promising to de-escalate the Cold War (and avoid any future Korean Wars). And then Nixon ran the same playbook eight years later. Reagan beat Carter on similar grounds (peaceful extraction from Iran).
Candidates regularly run - and win - on anti-war positions, only to enter office and reverse course, generating a backlash as a result. Trump's just the latest and most glaring example.
Point of order: all of your contrasting examples were competent.
Plenty of people will happily argue that Operation Desert Storm was a shitshow. Just ask all the veterans with "Gulf War Syndrome". Or the millions of starving Iraqis that incentivized the "Oil for Food" program (itself an enormous swindle). Similarly, if you crack open Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States", he's got some hard truths to drop about the US intervention in Kosovo and Serbia. For that matter, it's worth interrogating why Yugoslavia disintegrated so quickly to begin with (TL;DR; perestroika).
And then you've got Korea, which I would argue is the gold standard for "Failed US Wars" even relative to the current Iran cockup. MacArthur runs laps around Pete Hegseth when it comes to disastrous military adventurism.
Even the Bush Afghan/Iraq Wars are bigger blunders by sheer volume. Hard to compete with a 23 year long calamity inside a mere four months. We did not - blessedly - turn Iran into a narco-state that sent thousands of tons of cheap heroin into the veins of western allied nations for decades on end. We do not appear to have created a new ISIS by engaging in de-IRGC-ization. We killed tens of thousands of people rather than millions of people.
Coulda been way worse.
Nobody is worse at military operations than Pete Hegseth, nobody.
As for the rest, too tired to argue.
I would be hard pressed to name a military command more disastrous than MacArthur's decision to invade China.
He bankrupted a casino. That should be everything you need to know
He got caught saying 'grab them by the pussy.' That wasn't enough.
A conservative woman went on the TV show The View to defend him.
Another panelist kept repeating 'pussy' over and over.
Finally the conservative lady had to demand that the other panelist stop using that offensive word.
*multiple times*