Over the past few days, concerns of escalating conflicts seem to have skyrocketed as the United States has struck three nuclear facilities in Iran. This is a development that could draw the country further into another Middle Eastern quagmire. President Trump imposed a ceasefire shortly thereafter, but it has done little to temper the continued attacks between Israel and Iran, despite his firm declaration to break off from the short-lived war. An exasperated Trump remarked this morning, ‘We have two nations here so entrenched in their feud, they’ve lost sight of their actions.’
One can’t help but recall Trump’s campaign in which he positioned himself as a ‘source of amity’ and a ‘consolidator.’ He even assured his supporters that he would resist the urge to initiate wars during his leadership. However, the recent detonations on Iranian soil, all of which were performed without the nod from the Congress, conspicuously contradict the very role he vowed to fulfill. It smacks of hypocrisy and fundamentally undermines the platform he initially established.
In the vein of maintaining an honest record, let’s examine a selection of 12 past arguments from conservatives on peace and non-intervention, which, given these recent actions, seem to have lost their appropriateness. The first one being, ‘Supporting Kamala Harris equates to supporting continual war, perhaps even instigating World War III or a nuclear war. Voting for Donald Trump is effectively voting for an individual committed to ceasing wars, not instigating them.’
The second one states, ‘It’s up to Congress to decide on matters of war.’ The third point goes, ‘Donald Trump offers the only tangible proof that he will not encourage more wars. He is the candidate of peace.’ The fourth point claims, ‘One day, Obama will wage war against Iran to showcase his toughness.’
The fifth point suggests, ‘We’ve successfully averted a nuclear war through trade instead of resorting to bullets. This accomplishment fills me with pride.’ The sixth point praises, ‘In the face of tremendous pressure to attack Iran, President Trump shows he’s an agent for peace rather than war.’ The seventh point projects, ‘Under Trump’s reign, we will avoid further wars, disturbances, and we will ensure prosperity and peace for all.’
The eighth point trumpets, ‘My most profound legacy will be that of a conciliator and consolidator.’ The ninth point proposes, ‘It serves our interest best to halt the bloodshed.’ The tenth point warns, ‘Kamala Harris is leading us straight into World War 3.’
The eleventh claim fears, ‘If Kamala Harris becomes president, we might end up facing a period of destitution, vulnerability, and insecurity across the globe, that may eventually give rise to wars. On the other hand, we can expect affluence, safety, power, and tranquility with Donald Trump.’
It seems these conservative talking points, which were once perceived as cornerstones of their political ideology, have not weathered the storm of time well. The stark dissonance between the espoused peace and the recent actions of the Trump administration raises glaring questions on the validity of these claims.
Was it not touted that a vote for Kamala Harris would steer us toward war, even possibly a World War III or nuclear war? The actions under the Trump administration, however, reflect a reality that seems counter to this narrative. Can we still hold true that Congress, according to the conservatives’ own proclamation, should be the decider on going to war, when actions on the ground suggest otherwise?
Can the conservatives still maintain that Trump is the ‘pro-peace candidate’ when the US under his rule ventures into unauthorized actions against another country? And what of the claim that ‘Obama would attack Iran to showcase his toughness’ when it seems that it is the Trump administration that has initiated strikes, defying campaign promises and amplifying concerns of a renewed conflict?
The claim that we have successfully avoided a nuclear war through trade instead of bullets also falls under scrutiny as the recent bombings of the nuclear facilities in Iran seem to reflect a rather opposite stance. Can Trump supporters still consider him ‘an agent of peace rather than war’ when the actions of his administration suggest otherwise?
Is it, after all, accurate to say that under Trump’s reign, we can expect to avoid further wars and disturbances and ensure prosperity and peace for all, when the recent developments seem to suggest otherwise? And can the claim that ‘Kamala Harris is leading us straight into World War III’ hold any water, when actions taken during the Trump administration appear to edge us closer to intensified global conflicts?
The post Joe Biden’s Hypocrisy Highlighted in Response to U.S. Strikes in Iran appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
