Iran and the Trump Administration’s Influence
Things are happening rapidly in Iran. Just this past Saturday, I had a bourbon or two, which, well, let’s say it dulled my senses. Then, with the time change, I took a nap on Sunday. It’s always a bit risky to nap, especially for an hour. I woke up a bit groggy, feeling like I’d been dreaming through two Ayatollahs.
Following Trump’s aggressive stance towards Iran and the targeting of their nuclear facilities and missile stockpiles, oil prices surged close to $120 a barrel on Monday. It’s notable since they dropped below $60 during Trump’s “drill baby drill” era. In my opinion, $60 is a decent price—not just for oil, but frankly for the barrel itself. Thankfully, we’re self-sufficient in oil production now, plus there’s the strategic reserve and that oil previously taken from P. Diddy.
I often hear the question: who benefits from war? In my view, it’s the defense contractors like Raytheon and politicians in D.C. who have a financial stake in the arms industry.
Operation Epic Fury comes with a hefty price tag. It’s estimated we’ve already spent around $5 billion. To give some context, that’s enough to cover a year’s expenses for a non-operational daycare in Minneapolis.
This conflict isn’t just about eliminating nuclear threats; it’s also about potentially liberating people—especially women—from a repressive theocracy. I sincerely hope that the Iranian women, who are forced into early marriages, denied driving rights, and oppressed by the “morality police,” can find some measure of freedom and safety. It’s shocking that Iran’s consent age for girls is as low as 13. And it feels important to mention, with a tinge of irony, that liberal American women protesting in support of this regime might not realize what they’re advocating for.
Take Jane Fonda and Cher; they expressed a desire to perform for Iran. Sadly, the Iranian mullahs turned them down, stating that any female performers must be younger than the country itself.
Looking at the political landscape, Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the former Supreme Leader, is now stepping up. He’s been ushered in by a system that pretends to be a theocracy but functions more like a kleptocracy. The hardliners are keen to keep their power, and the violent elements seem necessary for their survival. I can’t help but chuckle at the irony of the interview questions he must have faced; something along the lines of “Where do you envision blowing up in two years?”
This isn’t the leadership Trump envisioned, and for the foreseeable future, our military appears set to continue its efforts against the regime.
The title “Supreme Leader” says it all; that position embodies absolute, unchecked power. It’s an illusion of a republic in a regime that resembles Putin’s Russia or New York’s political landscape with certain prosecutors.
Beneath the surface, while he plays the scholar of the Koran, Mojtaba Khamenei is quite similar to his father. He has been a part of the continuation of the regime’s practices of corruption and abuse. Given his background, the only other role he’d be suited for might be in a failing sports franchise.
Their brand of extremism includes a clear disdain for non-Muslim “infidels.” But, if you dare to point this out or express fear for your life, you’re labeled Islamophobic.
The current regime fights not for its people, but its own survival. As one Iranian commented, they’ve created a sprawling network with deep roots in various sectors of Iranian life—economics, media, religion—that constrains alternatives within the country.
This dilemma seems to set leftists on edge. With key leaders of the oppressive regime gone, some might be upset, but the silver lining? Those affected may now be eligible to vote in our upcoming elections.
Want a glimpse of leftist reactions? Imagine if an Iranian drone were to hit a hospital in Palestine—what flag would show up on social media?
