Is Iran Now in Trump's Crosshairs?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaking at a press conference (JTA)

One of the more striking aspects of the media coverage surrounding the capture, arrest, and eventual trial of Venezuelan dictator and drug trafficker Nicolás Maduro was the way it was framed as ‘controversial’, as though opposition to the operation were as morally valid as support for it.

What the mainstream media largely ignored - though it was obvious from those interviewed -  was that the supporters were overwhelmingly expatriate Venezuelans. They were openly grateful, even emotional, thanking the president for finally acting and expressing hope of returning home once democracy is restored.

The protesters opposing the operation, by contrast, were the familiar collection of leftist activists reciting well-worn platitudes about violations of international law, seemingly indifferent to the reality that a brutal dictator ruling by force over an impoverished population would otherwise have remained in power. The same reflexive condemnation was echoed at the UN by predictable European voices eager to portray the beginning of Venezuela’s liberation from socialist dictatorship as a crime.

Despite public denunciations for domestic consumption, Venezuela’s current leadership has pledged cooperation with the United States. Predictably, however, the president’s political opposition in Congress is also outraged. Most acknowledge that Maduro was a vicious dictator responsible for facilitating drug trafficking that has killed countless Americans. They are glad he is gone. Yet still condemn the president for acting without congressional consultation. Once again, they want it both ways.

The irony is hard to miss: Republicans now side with the Venezuelan people, while Democrats effectively side with the dictator by insisting the president was wrong to act and should have left Maduro in power.

Meanwhile, voices on the left - especially in academia - insist with absolute certainty that the operation had nothing to do with drug trafficking or liberation. The real motive, they claim, was oil.

I have rarely seen such anxiety over the supposed collapse of American democracy. Critics warn that the president is becoming a dictator by flouting the Constitution. They are entitled to that view. I do not share it.

In fact, I am encouraged by how world events are unfolding. Ironically, one of the president’s greatest flaws—his unpredictability—has become America’s greatest strategic asset. That mercurial style has helped end the war in Gaza and has put the fear of God into Iran. As I have said before: Iran should be worried. VERY worried. 

Israel has taken notice. And it isn’t only Netanayhu As reported by JTA:

The Venezuela operation drew attention in Israel, where leaders used it to signal a warning to Tehran amid mounting unrest inside Iran. Opposition leader Yair Lapid wrote on X that “the regime in Iran should pay close attention to what is happening in Venezuela,” framing the U.S. action as a broader message to a government facing intensifying protests and riots at home.

That sentiment was reinforced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio:

Speaking on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rubio said the United States will exert leverage, including continued sanctions and pressure on Venezuela’s oil sector, to ensure that the country “no longer cozy up to Hezbollah and Iran in our own hemisphere.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he offered a shorthand for U.S. goals: “No more drug trafficking, no more Iran Hezbollah presence there, and no more using the oil industry to enrich all our adversaries around the world.”

Those who are wringing their hands over a supposed constitutional crisis need not worry. Much - if not most - of the criticism coming from Congress and academia is driven by ideological bias. If there truly were a constitutional emergency, Republicans would not be lining up to support the president.

Some will argue that they do so only out of fear of retaliation. While that may be true about some of them, It is not true about all of them. The idea that an entire party would abandon the Constitution simply to stay in Trump’s good graces is absurd. Much of this debate ultimately comes down to interpretation—of both presidential authority and the Constitution itself. Claims of ‘obvious’ and ‘blatant’” violations are opinions, not settled facts, and are heavily filtered through the ideology of those making those assertions.

This is why I am not worried.

And while Iran once believed the U.S. would never put boots on the ground, it now believes the president might be ‘crazy’ enough to do so, even at legal risk...

 Emes Ve-Emunah will no longer be fully available here. To finish reading this post and future posts - and comment on them - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe. But it's easy and it's free.