Why Marjorie Greene and Candace Owen’s criticism of Trump’s Actions in Iran is not Credible

Donald Trump has a big coalition. While the left has alienated most of the middle class and many even traditionally Democratic voting bases such as younger black and hispanic males, the 47th President continues to grow and build out an increasingly more broad based MAGA movement.

Trump enjoys support from both working class people as well as much of business, and the President did very well with both Latino and black males under the age of 30 in the recent 2024 election as well. The President has consistently grown his political coalition since 2016, and he’s easily gotten more votes than any Republican in American history.

One of the best signs of a functioning democracy is healthy and respectable debate. No party will ever agree on everything, and some level of disagreement on the many issues the President deals with is more than natural. While the Democrats were intolerant of any criticism of Biden, the Justice Department was even weaponized against some Democratic politicians such as Eric Adams who spoke out against Biden’s failed policies, Trump is more than willing to listen to sound and logicial criticism of his actions and policies.

Still, the recent comments attacking Trump’s military strike on Iran’s nuclear program by Marjorie Greene, Candace Owens, and some other prominent MAGA voices are not intellectually coherent arguments.

The President ran on stopping endless wars and conducting a foreign policy with a peace through strength philosophy. But the notion that Trump was never going to intervene militarily is as naive as it is absurd. The President successfully prioritized rebuilding the military for exactly the kind of successful operation that was conducted over the weekend.

All credible reports suggest that Trump’s ordered bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities achieved the desired results, and, at least so far, no wider war has occured between the US and the Iranian regime or in the Middle East as a whole. Trump is not putting boots on the ground or pursuing regime change in Iran; he’s taking the kind of targeted and important action that sends a tough, but limited, message to the mullahs and will make the US and are our allies safer.

The core problem with the criticism of Owens and Greene is their position criticizing Trump’s attack on Iran isn’t consistent. The Congresswoman from Georgia and the well-known conservative commentator both agreed with the President’s decision in his first term to exit the absurd Iran nuclear deal Barack Obama entered into with the vile Iranian regime. Anyone who has studied the Iranian government knows this dictatorship hates America and supports violence. Iran has consistently been the largest state sponsor of terrorist groups, including ones targeting American troops in places like Iraq during that past conflict.

The Ayatollahs were never going to willingly or peacefully give up their nuclear program, and Trump’s decision to exit the failed Obama agreement with the Iranian regime put the US on a course where military action was all but inevitable at some point. Iran was not willing to negotiate with Trump in his first term; the Iranian government even tried to assassinate Trump before he could serve his second term, and this rogue nation was also unwilling to negotiate in the President’s second term more recently as well.

Trump used force as a last resort, and he did not put combat troops on the group or pursue regime change. His actions have also been reported by both US intelligence agencies and the IAEA to have been successful.

If Trump had stayed in Obama’s agreement with Iran then the same conservatives who are criticizing his actions for ordering the recent military strike would have been angry with the President. Likewise, obviously, if Trump did not take out Iran’s nuclear program, and the rogue nation was able to successfully develop nuclear weapons, these individuals would of course be unhappy with the President as well. Their position lacks credibility at the most basic level.

Military action was always likely going to be required to get rid of Iran’s nuclear program, and the same people who applauded the President exiting Obama’s failed agreement with Iran’s government lack credibility when criticizing the subsequent military action that was always likely inevitably going to be needed to neutralize the regime’s efforts to develop the capacity to build a nuclear weapons.

The reality is that Trump’s targeted military strike was both the necessary and inevitable outcome resulting from the President’s correct decision to exit the Iran Nuclear Deal, a choice applauded by the same conservative voices now criticizing the 47th President. Trump’s actions were strong and his order made both the region and the world safer, this is what he ran on, and he’s successfully carrying out exactly what he stated he would do.