This piece argues that recent U.S. action against Iran and a shift in relations with Venezuela mark a decisive return to a Cold War posture, framing President Trump as restoring American deterrence while blasting Democratic critics for hypocrisy and alarmism. It claims the War Powers Act procedures are being followed, praises the strategic effects on China and Russia, and celebrates a revived Pax Americana anchored by military, economic, and technological superiority.
The death-cult theocracy of Iran – maybe better put, just “theo-crazy” Iran – is defeated, and the formerly commie-petro state of Venezuela is now a gas station for the United States. Those outcomes, the piece asserts, are the direct result of bold, unapologetic American leadership that puts national interest first and forces adversaries to recalibrate. This tone pushes back on panic from pundits and hand-wringing from Democrats who rush to invoke constitutional alarms after decades of selective outrage.
The “woke right,” led by Tucker Carlson, thinks we’ve started World War III, and Democrats are screaming “War Powers Act.” Not a peep during Biden/Obama/Clinton adventures, though. (Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal!) The argument here is simple: if past administrations engaged military forces with little consequence, the current fuss is less about law and more about political theater.
But setting Carlson and any other unhinged personalities aside for the moment, let’s look at the “woke-right” and Democrat accusations against President Trump in the wake of this past weekend’s attack on Iran, shall we? The piece points out that President Trump campaigned against “forever wars” in 2016 and that forcing allies and rivals to live up to commitments is not the same as reckless intervention. It frames this confrontation as targeted, strategic, and time-limited rather than nation-building by default.
America was either blundered or lied into “forever wars” by Bush neo-cons and/or DC beltway banditry. But, according to them, Orange Man Bad is a megalomaniacal warmonger who seeks unbridled power abroad and despotism at home, and is now prosecuting a blatantly unconstitutional war. The counterpoint made here is that rhetoric from opponents ignores the actual legal requirements and timelines set by law, and it treats all military action as illegitimate irrespective of context.
Conceding Democrat idiocy for the moment, the WPA requires Congress be informed of troop deployments within 48 hours. It requires congressional approval within 60 days of military engagement – this is day five. So what’s there to be “invoked,” exactly? If the law’s procedures are being followed, many of the panic headlines collapse under their own inconsistency.
Somehow, holding other countries to their word makes the United States “less respected,” in liberals’ logic. The piece argues the opposite: enforcing consequences for bad actors restores respect, deters future aggression, and prevents the slide into unchecked threats that metastasize into larger direct confrontations. This approach, the author says, reintroduces clear boundaries—something long absent from erratic foreign policy.
China, and bringing up a distant rear, Russia, now have two proverbial real-time cases of the capability of our military versus theirs. This has produced the real-time effect of them giving their erstwhile Islamo-nut Iranian allies the stiff arm and otherwise generally keeping their big mouths shut. That dynamic, the article claims, undercuts narratives about American decline and forces great power competitors to reassess their calculations.
That cheap and stolen Chinese and Russian tech hasn’t shown up so great with Maduro getting nabbed in his PJs and Khamenei finishing breakfast in hell. By striking Iran decisively, the piece contends, the United States prevented another potential nuclear aspirant from graduating to that status and removed a destabilizing regional threat. It frames the outcome as a rollback of aggression rather than an expansion of empire.
Because of another demented Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, and his communist-infiltrated administration 80 years ago, China and Russia matriculated with their nuke degrees back then. That required the United States to confront the Soviet incarnation in a five-decade Cold War, and the new era looks a lot like that old strategic contest. The author sees value in returning to a world where American strength, not appeasement, sets the terms.
The good news is – at its worst – the Cold War was an era of proxy wars and apocalypse paranoia always egged on by subversives while in actuality maintaining a proverbial stable post-war order. A “forever war” – but without shots or otherwise purposeful direct engagement between the major powers of the era, which would have been truly cataclysmic. Restoring deterrence and technological edge, the piece argues, prevents escalation and preserves peace through strength.
The only thing missing is bell-bottoms, big hair, and Marty McFly. Trump has restored the status quo ante, which was a Pax Americana guaranteed with nuclear deterrence, and this time, an adversary-dwarfing military cyber and technological advantage. Once the tax and regulatory reforms kick in later this year, the author forecasts an economic surge to match renewed strategic clarity.
So welcome back to the Cold War, and Making It Great Again!
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump and his administration’s bold leadership, we are respected on the world stage, and our enemies are being put on notice.
Add comment