Trump is demanding Iran’s unconditional surrender, implying that absent that, they will take the Supreme Leader of Iran out. Trump’s Truth Social comment makes it clear the U.S. is helping Israel.
Donald Trump threatens Iran.
Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
Summary
Donald Trump’s latest Truth Social broadside drags the United States to the brink of another Middle East war. In a pair of posts, he bragged that Washington “knows exactly where the so-called Supreme Leader is hiding,” threatened Ayatollah Khamenei as an “easy target,” and demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender” while claiming “complete and total control of the skies over Iran.”
- Trump publicly signaled a willingness to assassinate Iran’s highest official, only to add “at least not for now,” normalizing extra-judicial killing as a policy tool.
- His outburst follows reports that Israel, with tacit U.S. backing, struck deep inside Iran—killing senior commander Ali Shadmani and bombing nuclear sites—provoking retaliatory missiles and cyber-attacks.
- U.S. officials have issued contradictory statements, alternating between “diplomatic paths” and open threats, heightening confusion about actual American involvement.
- Congressional leaders from both parties now debate war-powers authority, underscoring that Trump’s unilateral belligerence bypasses constitutional checks.
- Global actors—France, the EU, Turkey, and Egypt—condemn escalation and warn that regime-change fantasies endanger civilians across the region and the global economy.
Trump’s rhetoric again exposes a right-wing playbook: stoke nationalist fervor, outsource aggression to an increasingly reckless Israeli leadership, and gamble that working-class Americans will pay the blood-and-treasure bill while the powerful profit.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
Donald Trump’s threats against Iran illuminate a larger pattern of American militarism that progressive critics have long warned about: unaccountable executive adventurism serving a shrinking elite, cloaked in the language of national “strength.” In 2016, Trump campaigned as the anti-war Republican, denouncing “endless wars” and mocking the Bush-era debacle in Iraq. Yet every moment in office—and now in campaign mode—he reverts to dangerous impulse. His Truth Social fusillade, culminating with the all-caps demand “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” is less a coherent strategy than a performative flex aimed at cable-news headlines and MAGA social feeds.
A progressive reading starts with legality. Under both domestic and international law, threatening to assassinate a foreign head of state is no small matter. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution vests war-making power in Congress, while the United Nations Charter bars aggressive force except in self-defense. By publicly musing that Khamenei is an “easy target,” Trump not only violates diplomatic norms; he invites reciprocal violence against U.S. officials, soldiers, and civilians. That is why even the Biden administration—hardly dovish—halted plans to kill Iranian commanders in 2021 after National Security Council lawyers raised red flags. Trump’s brag illustrates the perils of a presidency unchecked by law or reason.
Equally troubling is the enabling role of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel’s targeted killing of General Ali Shadmani inside Iran, reported by The Guardian, is part of a broader doctrine of pre-emptive strikes carried out with U.S.-made F-35s and funded by $3.3 billion in annual American aid. Netanyahu’s coalition, already embroiled in allegations of war crimes in Gaza, now leverages Trump’s rhetoric as diplomatic cover. Under the fiction that Israel is merely a bulwark of “Western values,” Washington outsources its most destabilizing actions while claiming plausible deniability. This cozy arrangement undermines genuine security; each assassination or bombing triggers Iranian retaliation—missiles into the Negev, cyber-attacks on U.S. banks, spiraling energy prices—placing ordinary Israelis, Iranians, and Americans in the crossfire.
Progressives point to the human cost. Iran’s civilian infrastructure, already battered by U.S. sanctions, now faces fresh missile strikes. Gaza’s hospitals collapse under Israeli siege, and millions of working families in the United States watch defense stocks soar as social-service budgets shrink. War profiteers collect dividend checks while teachers buy classroom supplies on GoFundMe. The bipartisan establishment frames this as “protecting our interests,” yet polls show solid majorities favor diplomacy over force. The disconnect reveals how oligarchic capture distorts foreign policy: campaign donors in the fossil fuel and weapons industries enjoy direct lines to decision-makers, whereas peace activists must fight for a hearing.
Congress’s dawning debate over war powers offers a rare opening—even hawkish Republicans blanch at being dragged into a regional conflagration during an election year. Progressive lawmakers—Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, and the ever-growing Defense Spending Reduction Caucus—insist that any strike on Iran requires explicit authorization and transparent cost accounting. They argue that $886 billion Pentagon budgets do not translate into safety; they drain resources from childcare, green infrastructure, and Medicare expansion. Every Tomahawk missile, they remind voters, costs roughly what it would take to provide four-year tuition at a public university for 40 students.
Internationally, France’s Emmanuel Macron and EU foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell echo those concerns, warning that forced regime-change fantasies in Tehran resemble the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Turkey and Egypt condemn Israeli escalation, while Qatar—home to the world’s largest gas field—fears supply disruptions that could spike global energy prices and stall climate-transition investments. Such diplomatic pushback underscores that Trump’s bravado isolates the United States, empowering hard-liners in Tehran who thrive on external threats to suppress domestic dissent.
What would a progressive alternative look like? First, reenter diplomacy without preconditions—reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that verifiably limited Iran’s nuclear program until Trump torpedoed it in 2018. Second, end blanket military aid that enables Israeli impunity and channel funds into regional renewable-energy cooperation, reducing the oil-security pretext for endless conflict. Third, pass the National Security Powers Act to restore congressional oversight, codifying that neither Trump nor any president can bomb first and consult later. Finally, invest the peace dividend at home: expand the child-tax credit, retrofit aging water systems, and build the care economy that polling shows Americans overwhelmingly want.
The former is the diplomatic answer that falls within standard American foreign policy. But here is a reality. MADD worked for decades between the United States, Russia, and China. The United States huffs and puffs about North Korea having nuclear bombs they now have. Ever wonder why we never contemplate bombing or invading North Korea, a genuinely evil country? Can one not empathize with any nation that believes the bomb gives them security from any bully or preemptive strikes?
Trump’s threat is not an isolated tweet; it is a window into a worldview where might makes right and billionaire egos play a game of Risk with real human lives. If progressives articulate a coherent, values-based foreign policy—rooted in diplomacy, human rights, and redistributive justice—they can expose the hollowness of Trumpian swagger. The choice is stark: an escalatory spiral that enriches weapons manufacturers and endangers the planet, or a forward-looking strategy that treats security as collective well-being rather than permanent war. The path to peace runs through public pressure, congressional courage, and an international movement that says, “No more wars for profit.”
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
