Will Tulsi Be The First Casualty In Trump’s Bombing Raid Against Iran’s Nuclear Facility At Fordow?

This Time Trump's Ugly Divisiveness Includes MAGA

With MAGA stalwarts like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Dave Smith, Charlie Kirk and Marjorie Traitor Greene leading the MAGA masses against the idea of a U.S. attack on Iran, Vance, one of the far right’s most isolationist voices, whimpered, weakly, on Twitter that “People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.” Ms Lindsey, of course, was more proactively pushing for war and bloodshed, insisting Trump doesn’t need congressional approval to launch strikes against Iran. Ted Cruz used a wormy, Philadelphia lawyer approach: “A single bombing run, historically, has not been understood to require congressional authorization.” Every poll shows that most Americans oppose bombing Iran.

Much of the DC political press is reporting, breathlessly, as if an attack is all but underway. “As we know, any U.S. intervention would likely involve USAF B-2 bombers flying stealth missions to destroy Iran’s largest nuclear sites, including the sprawling underground network at Fordow. AP reports each B-2 bomber ‘would have to make the 30-hour round trip from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, refueling multiple times’— which might explain why we’ve seen no direct U.S. action just yet. The White House firmly believes U.S. involvement can be restricted to a series of tactical strikes against specific facilities, without descending into an extended war. ‘No one in the West Wing is talking regime change,’ the same administration official tells Dasha. ‘It’s not regime change. It’s taking out their nukes.’”

Netanyahu, Graham and other far right warmongers absolutely want regime change. “It’s certainly possible the U.S. could deliver carefully targeted strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites with no real comeback. After all, Iran’s most powerful allies, Russia and China, have been largely muted so far, and the already-weakened Iranian regime may decide it’s safest to avoid an escalation that may further loosen its grip on the country. But equally— it’s easier to start a war than to end one, as Gabriel García Márquez famously wrote. And we’ve seen these things get out of hand before.” And Netanyahu is standing by to make sure “out-of-hand” is what will happen.

Politico also covered the falling out of favor Tulsi Gabbard, the Putin-aligned Director of National Intelligence, who has worked against an attack, warning that “political elite and warmongers” [presumably Lindsey Graham and Laura Loomer] “carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers”— [and that the world is] “on the brink of nuclear annihilation.” Not what Trump wants to hear from his minions.

Click on this to hear why Trump may fire Tulsi

Rachael Bade and crew wrote that “Trump saw the unauthorized video and became incensed, complaining to associates at the White House that she had spoken out of turn… ‘I don’t think he dislikes Tulsi as a person … But certainly the video made him not super hot on her … and he doesn’t like it when people are off message,” said a senior administration official. The official added that Trump also doesn’t appreciate it when people appear to be correcting him and that ‘many took that video as trying to correct the administration’s position.’ Trump’s reaction to the video underscores a widening gap between a president on the brink of potentially joining Israel’s war, and his anti-interventionist intelligence chief, who in the past has been adamantly against the U.S. engaging in new foreign conflicts. Indeed, the man Gabbard endorsed on the campaign trail— who spoke of ending the Ukraine-Russia War on Day 1 and ushering in a new era of peace— is striking a different tone from her now that he’s sitting behind the Resolute desk. Those tensions came to the forefront early Tuesday when a reporter aboard Air Force One asked Trump about Gabbard’s declaration before Congress in March that Iran was not seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Trump appeared to dismiss her assessment. ‘I don’t care what she said,’ Trump replied. ‘I think they were very close to having a weapon.’… [I]n recent months, Trump has increasingly mused about nixing Gabbard’s office completely, an idea he floated when he gave her the job. In the White House there have been discussions about folding its mandate into the CIA or another agency, according to one of the people familiar with his response to the video and two others familiar with the matter— though it’s unclear what that would mean for Gabbard.”

Her statements were in keeping with the sentiment of many MAGA leaders that deeper U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran clashes could pull America into a regional and even worldwide conflict. But ever since then there’s been simmering frustration with Gabbard in the West Wing.

The president, after all, notably called former President Barack Obama “pathetic” in 2016 for visiting Hiroshima, and argued that people shouldn’t apologize for anything the U.S. did during WWII.

And Trump has “just been kind of down on her in general,” said one of the people familiar with Gabbard’s interactions with the White House, adding that Trump thinks she “doesn’t add anything to any conversation.”

…The apparent divide has been a source of gossip among people on both sides of the ideological spectrum who are closely following the rising tensions in the Middle East. Israel hawks like conservative talk show host Mark Levin have mocked Gabbard’s assessment, suggesting that U.S. intelligence under her leadership has been flat-out incorrect.

Some of Gabbard’s detractors are now holding up Trump’s words to argue that she should get the axe.

“She shouldn’t be in that job,” Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, who had his own falling out with Trump, said Tuesday.

Video of Trump’s comments about Gabbard on Air Force One have also stirred speculation on Capitol Hill that he has lost trust in her, said one senior congressional aide. Lawmakers of both parties were sharing the video widely among themselves on Tuesday morning, said the aide, who was granted anonymity to share details of private conversations.

“This is not just the hawkish camp,” the person said. “This is every single member sending it around.”

Even people who agree with Gabbard have been worried about her influence waning: On his podcast War Room on Monday, MAGA ringleader Steve Bannon rhetorically asked his guest Tucker Carlson why Gabbard was not invited to what appears to have been a critical Camp David huddle earlier this month, where Trump and senior officials from his CIA director to chief of staff and the vice president discussed how to posture amid Israeli’s looming strike.

“You know why … This is a regime change effort,” Carlson answered.

Gabbard— who has spoken of losing friends while serving in the military— has in the past been extremely outspoken against such incursions. The former lawmaker has long been “focused on not getting ourselves into another horrible war we can’t succeed in or get our way out of,” said Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at the think-tank Defense Priorities, whom Gabbard tapped to serve in a top job at ODNI but whose appointment was axed following an uproar about his past criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

…As Gabbard navigates the politics of Trump’s White House, she may also be thinking ahead to what might come next. In a recent podcast interview with former Fox News host Megyn Kelly in May, Gabbard didn’t rule out running for president in 2028.

“I will never rule out any opportunity to serve my country,” Gabbard said.

If Trump decides to join Israel in attacking Iran, that could complicate her calculus of serving in the administration.

A DWT contributor has a little discussion with ChatGPT that he shared. It's cute and worth considering:

Anyone heard from Israel’s US arm, AIPAC? Yesterday, David Dayen, Ryan Grim, Nicolae Butler, and Pablo Manríquez reported that the toxic organization “has been furiously urging House Democrats to release messages of steadfast support for Israel in its war with Iran… even as bipartisan lawmakers come together on a War Powers Act resolution to prevent U.S. troops or funds being used in yet another Middle East conflagration. One member relayed that a colleague had received literally 100 phone calls from members of AIPAC and its allied pressure groups. AIPAC wants House Democratic members to state explicitly that they ‘stand with Israel’ in its actions against Iran aimed at destroying the Islamic Republic’s nuclear capability, and add that Iran ‘must never have a nuclear weapon.’ In addition, AIPAC has taken particular pains to denigrate the moderate pro-Israel group J Street, both in private conversations with members of Congress and in public, picking a fight aimed at blocking any Democrats from using J Street as cover to deviate from AIPAC’s maximalist position. ‘They’re worried their members in Congress may start to shift toward J Street and they’re trying to head that off,’ said an aide to one Democrat. ‘I did see that AIPAC took issue with my statement,’ said Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state. ‘They were taking on J Street for endorsing me, which was ridiculous.’ To get a sense of how extreme AIPAC’s demands are, note that J Street’s own statement merely calls for diplomacy while still supporting Israel. ‘We urge the Trump Administration to meaningfully pursue a diplomatic resolution to this conflict as quickly as possible while making clear the US will do what is necessary to defend Israel and US troops from retaliation,’ the statement read.”

AIPAC, basically a bloodthirsty arm of both the Likud and the GOP, is attacking Democrats for urging negotiations. Their message “reflect one way special interests shape policies in Washington, where a conforming statement is a metric lobbyists can cite to show their dominance. While not everyone received this bombardment of communications from AIPAC officials— particularly progressives who have made their views known about Israel’s actions— judging by a substantial portion of House Democrats, the effort appears to be having an effect. According to a review of member statements at their congressional websites and on social media, 28 House Democrats have issued messages saying explicitly that they ‘stand with Israel,’ or some close variation thereof. Another 35 express unequivocal support for Israel without using the magic words ‘stand with Israel’ precisely, but they leave no doubt as to the member’s support. And 16 others express ‘soft’ support for Israel, without quite the same inflammatory language.”

AIPAC is showcasing messaging from three of its conservative shills: Greg Landsman (New Dem-OH), Mike Levin (New Dem-CA) and George Whitesides (New Dem-CA). Among the most subservient to Israel are freshmen Johnny Olszewski (New Dem-MD), April Delaney (New Dem-MD), Sarah Elfreth (New Dem-MD), Herb Conaway (New Dem-NJ), John Mannion (New Dem-NY), Suhas Subramanyam (New Dem-VA), Laura Gillen (New Dem-NY), Jared Golden (Blue Dog-ME) and the tail he wags, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Blue Dog-WA).

“The Constitution is very clear that no president can bomb another country or begin a war with the country without the permission of Congress,” Sen. Rand Paul (D-KY) insisted. My hope is that there won’t be any U.S. involvement.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) echoed this, arguing, “The president can’t undertake military action without a vote of Congress. Right now, I don’t see any circumstance in which direct U.S. military involvement would make us safer.”

Two pieces of legislation aim to quash U.S. involvement. One, introduced by independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is titled the No War With Iran Act and has seven Democratic co-sponsors. Sen. Tim Kaine’s War Powers Resolution seeks to reassert congressional authority over military engagements. In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced on Monday that he would issue a War Powers Resolution, which quickly got support from 15 Democratic members.

But several other U.S. senators seemed to abandon the constitutional role they have in authorizing military action, stating their general opposition to entering the Middle East but— in the words of Indiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks— their absolute “trust” in Trump.

“I trust President Trump. He’s the commander in chief. He’ll decide what role we play,” Banks declared. He framed Trump as a singular force for peace, asserting, “President Trump is the greatest peacemaker in my lifetime. If there’s anybody that can avoid war in the Middle East and bring peace, it’s him. He’s done it before.” Banks, a veteran of Afghanistan, tied his stance to a broader rejection of “prolonged ‘forever wars,’” vowing to dedicate his time in Congress to preventing another Afghanistan-like quagmire. “That was a mistake, a prolonged forever war. We should never do that again. But President Trump’s not going to allow that to happen.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a co-sponsor of the No War With Iran Act, lambasted Senate Republicans for their apparent inability to challenge Trump, quipping, “They’ve all had their spines removed. None of them seem capable of standing up to Donald Trump, which means they cannot fulfill their oaths to the Constitution.”

When asked about pressure from constituents, senators reported varying levels of engagement. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who expressed support for action against Iran, said he’s faced little pushback, stating, “I believe we need to move on Iran.” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) dismissed constituent concerns, noting, “Everybody’s living their own life over here. That’s a long ways away.” He deferred to Trump’s judgment, adding, “Whatever President Trump decides to do, I’m all for helping them out.”

… Conversely, Sen. Murphy noted a lack of appetite for war among his constituents, saying, “There’s not an appetite in this country for another war in the Middle East.” Luján highlighted the need for more transparency, suggesting that public and congressional unease stems from a lack of information.

That was also the assessment of Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), an early co-sponsor of the War Powers Resolution in the House, who cast the debate in political terms. “Donald Trump took the anti-war lane from us in 2016 and 2024. We have a chance to take it back by clearly opposing Netanyahu’s strikes and being a bold voice for diplomacy,” Khanna said. “Democrats underestimate how much ordinary Americans are tired of war.”

One of AIPAC’s most dedicated long-time tools, an utter shill and their inside man, just so happens to be leader of the “opposition,” something AIPAC made sure would happen with no opposition.