Latest news with #Trump-supporting
New York Post
11 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
MAGA splits over Trump's backing of Israel
US President Donald Trump suggested that Israel's strikes could help his administration make a nuclear deal with Iran. TOI correspondent from Washington: MAGA isolationists are up in arms against US involvement in the Middle-East even as President Donald Trump has ostensibly bowed to pressure from the powerful pro-Israel lobby to throw Washington's support behind the Jewish state. Several Trump-supporting MAGA surrogates, including conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, and Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor-Greene, have broken ranks to oppose American involvement, saying it is betrayal of Trump's pledge to keep US out of foreign wars. Carlson has been vocal in his criticism, accusing Trump of being 'complicit' in Israel's attack on Iran and arguing that US funding and weapons supplied to Israel, which Trump boasted about on Truth Social, has placed Washington at the center of the conflict. "The real divide isn't between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between warmongers and peacemakers," Carlson said on Friday, bluntly naming former Fox News colleague Sean Hannity, commentator Mark Levin, media baron Rupert Murdoch, and Jewish billionaires Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson, among the provocateurs. Steve Bannon, a former Trump White House aide, also urged Trump to keep US out of the war, while Congresswoman Green questioned if Iran and its proxies are a danger to US national interests, saying "I don't think we should be fighting wars on behalf of israel...I have never seen a Houthi, or however you pronounce it, in my life..." However, many MAGA Trump acolytes, including Hannity, Senator Lindsey GRaham, conservative radio host Mark Levin, and social media gadabout Laura Loomed, backed the President's support for Israel because of its pursuit of nuclear weapons, although Trump's intelligence czar Tulsi Gabbard, another anti-war figure, testified in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. 'The IC [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003,' Gabbard said, while noting, however, that Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels, unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons. While hardcore white Christian nationalists in MAGA are typically anti-Jew ("Jews will not replace us," is one of the chants heard in their rallies), the broader MAGA base is distinctly anti-war, blaming US involvement in foreign wars under both Republican and Democratic administrations among reasons the country has racked up a massive $ 36 trillion debt. Polling by some MAGA principals shows isolationist sentiment is still strong in the MAGA base, and President Trump's support for Israel is not shared among the rank and file.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gen Z MAGA Influencer Claims He Got ICE to Detain TikTok Star Khaby Lame
Bo Loudon, a Trump-supporting Gen Z influencer, has taken credit for TikTok star Khaby Lame's detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE on June 6. That day, Loudon, 18, who has called Donald Trump's son Barron his 'best friend,' began a series of posts on X claiming he initiated Lame's detainment. 'I discovered he was an illegal who overstayed an invalid VISA, evaded taxes, and I personally took action to have him deported,' Loudon alleged. Later, he added, 'I've been working with the patriots at President Trump's DHS to make this happen.' In a video posted on Monday, while making more unsubstantiated claims about Lame, Loudon said, 'I just called some buddies in the administration, and I've never seen anything happen so quick. They were like, 'We're gonna get right on this.'' More from Rolling Stone Masked ICE Agents Detain 9-Month-Pregnant U.S. Citizen in L.A. Crackdown Noem Asked for Troops to Be Authorized to Arrest 'Lawbreakers': Report Most-Followed TikToker Khaby Lame Detained, Released by ICE Over Visa Issue Lame, 25, is the most-followed TikToker in the world, known for his silently comedic videos skewering social media trends. Though Loudon alleged Lame is 'far-left,' Lame is not known for any political activity. The star was detained at Harry Reid International Airport, in Las Vegas, Nevada 'for immigration violations,' according to an ICE spokesperson's statement. 'Lame entered the United States [on] April 30 and overstayed the terms of his visa,' the spokesperson said. ICE has also said Lame was granted voluntary departure the day he was detained and has since left the U.S. On June 9, the influencer shared a photo of himself in São Paulo, Brazil. He has not publicly addressed his detainment. A rep for Lame declined to comment on the detainment, and did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone's request for comment on Loudon's claims. Born Seringe Khabane Lame in Sengal, Lame is an Italian citizen and has been a resident of the country since he was one, according to NPR. Lame attended the Met Gala in New York City on May 5, alongside some of the world's most high-profile entertainers. A rep for ICE told Rolling Stone 'We have no further information to provide,' when asked to expand on Loudon's alleged involvement in Lame's detainment as well as the nature and duration of Lame's visa. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately return our request for comment. Loudon has frequently posited himself a playmaker in the President's world, calling himself, 'Trump's young gun.' He was on site for Trump's mid-campaign interview with controversial streamer Adin Ross in 2024, with his mother, conservative media personality, Gina Loudon, later calling the linkup her son's 'brainchild.' His father is former Missouri state senator John Loudon. June 11, 2:55 p.m.: This story has been updated to include ICE's comment. Best of Rolling Stone Every Super Bowl Halftime Show, Ranked From Worst to Best The United States of Weed Gaming Levels Up
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No Rational Aid Distribution System Should Work This Way
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is presiding over an unmitigated disaster, and everything about the U.S.- and Israel-backed group's failure was entirely predictable. After lifting a blockade on relief supplies to the Gaza Strip, Israeli authorities tapped GHF, which is barely months old, as the principal aid-delivery system for starving Palestinian residents. Since its operations began last week, dozens of civilians have been killed by gunfire while seeking to access the food-distribution centers. At least twice this week, GHF suspended its relief efforts in an attempt to improve security. Whatever you think of Israel's conduct during its war against Hamas in Gaza, you should understand that its delivery system for aid was doomed to fail. Israeli authorities and GHF had no realistic plan for what the logistics industry calls 'the last mile'—the process of getting goods from a distribution center to the customer, so to speak. GHF was founded in February and is already on its second leader, a Trump-supporting evangelical Christian public-relations executive. Among the firms that Israel engaged to provide security for distribution sites in southern Gaza is Safe Reach Solutions, a firm led by a former CIA official and staffed by former U.S. military and security contractors that was formed only in January. GHF and SRS are both mysterious, controversial entities whose financial backing is unclear. The organization has defended its work, claiming in a statement yesterday that 'almost 8.5 million meals have been delivered so far—without incident.' GHF also said it is still scaling up. 'Our top priority remains protecting the safety and dignity of those receiving aid,' the statement continued, 'especially as we continue to serve as the only reliable provider of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.' It's true that established aid agencies that have previously worked in Gaza's difficult conditions are not involved in the current effort. Israel cut ties with the UN Relief and Works Agency amid allegations that some of its staff had been involved with the October 7, 2023, terror attack by Hamas; the UN's World Food Program continues to work there but depleted all of its resources in late April. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clashed with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which lost two of its personnel in an Israeli bombing in May. (The group's leader has called conditions in Gaza 'worse than hell.') World Central Kitchen, which lost seven people in an Israeli strike in Gaza in 2024, closed its soup kitchen in April because it could not deliver food there. With relief agencies either sidelined or unable to deliver resources because of Israel's blockade, Netanyahu then chose, with American backing, the new GHF. But its first leader resigned after a few weeks, citing a lack of 'humanitarian principles' in the Gaza relief effort. [Julie Beck: It should not be controversial to plead for Gaza's children] Perhaps to help solve logistical questions—and perhaps to add reputational gloss to its efforts—GHF hired the Boston Consulting Group. But after violence broke out, that company withdrew from the contract. Later that same day, GHF appointed its new executive chairman, Johnnie Moore, who insisted that his agency was 'demonstrating that it is possible to move vast quantities of food to people who need it most.' In all cases, an organization delivering goods must optimize distribution routes that align with the community it's delivering to. Israel's lack of trust for experienced relief groups doesn't justify ignoring what those operations learned about moving supplies. Many distribution systems rely on what are known as micro-fulfillment centers—local warehouses, delivery hubs, temporary facilities—to provide goods closer to where the community is. This is why, a few years ago, the COVID-vaccine-distribution efforts that drew so heavily on local doctors and pharmacies were prioritized over larger-scale efforts. Employing many small distribution sites promotes flexibility; the system can adapt to changes in demand. The GHF has provided only four distribution centers, presumably for security reasons, in all of Gaza, down from the 400 that the UN once managed; many Palestinians must now walk hours to have any hope of picking up a food package. No rational system of distribution, under any circumstances, would work this way. GHF increased the security risk by having fewer, not more, distribution sites. The organization also seemed unprepared when tens of thousands of people converged on those sites. Forgive the comparison, but American retail stores planning for Black Friday sales have come to understand—in some cases because of past tragedies at a 'crush point'—the need for information systems that collect data on where the demand is coming from and that help organizations meet that demand quickly. Surely Israel could have anticipated the sheer desperation of Gaza's Palestinians after it cut off relief efforts for months. Especially in hard circumstances, how the last mile will work must be clearly explained to those on the receiving end. In large-scale logistics efforts, the mechanics of how delivery will occur—who needs the information, when they need it, and through which communications channels it will be delivered—are all integral parts of the process. Whole systems of real-time tracking, delivery windows, and notifications are there for Israel to use, even against what it perceives as a hostile population. But information about food availability has been scarce by all accounts. Al Jazeera reported that some announcements last Sunday came from speakers mounted on military drones. The shortage of information led to a rush to the limited number of distribution sites. Business analogies only go so far. An aid site is not a Costco. Palestinian civilians are not retail customers. But perhaps if the Israeli government and its newly chosen relief entity had thought through any of the logistical matters that preoccupy established companies and experienced aid agencies alike, many more Palestinians would be receiving the food aid they badly need, faster and more safely. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
This Gaza Relief Effort Was Doomed to Fail
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is presiding over an unmitigated disaster, and everything about the U.S.- and Israel-backed group's failure was entirely predictable. After lifting a blockade on relief supplies to the Gaza Strip, Israeli authorities tapped GHF, which is barely months old, as the principal aid-delivery system for starving Palestinian residents. Since its operations began last week, dozens of civilians have been killed by gunfire while seeking to access the food-distribution centers. At least twice this week, GHF suspended its relief efforts in an attempt to improve security. Whatever you think of Israel's conduct during its war against Hamas in Gaza, you should understand that its delivery system for aid was doomed to fail. Israeli authorities and GHF had no realistic plan for what the logistics industry calls 'the last mile'—the process of getting goods from a distribution center to the customer, so to speak. GHF was founded in February and is already on its second leader, a Trump-supporting evangelical Christian public-relations executive. Among the firms that Israel engaged to provide security for distribution sites in southern Gaza is Safe Reach Solutions, a firm led by a former CIA official and staffed by former U.S. military and security contractors that was formed only in January. GHF and SRS are both mysterious, controversial entities whose financial backing is unclear. The organization has defended its work, claiming in a statement yesterday that 'almost 8.5 million meals have been delivered so far—without incident.' GHF also said it is still scaling up. 'Our top priority remains protecting the safety and dignity of those receiving aid,' the statement continued, 'especially as we continue to serve as the only reliable provider of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.' It's true that established aid agencies that have previously worked in Gaza's difficult conditions are not involved in the current effort. Israel cut ties with the UN Relief and Works Agency amid allegations that some of its staff had been involved with the October 7, 2023, terror attack by Hamas; the UN's World Food Program continues to work there but depleted all of its resources in late April. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clashed with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which lost two of its personnel in an Israeli bombing in May. (The group's leader has called conditions in Gaza 'worse than hell.') World Central Kitchen, which lost seven people in an Israeli strike in Gaza in 2024, closed its soup kitchen in April because it could not deliver food there. With relief agencies either sidelined or unable to deliver resources because of Israel's blockade, Netanyahu then chose, with American backing, the new GHF. But its first leader resigned after a few weeks, citing a lack of 'humanitarian principles' in the Gaza relief effort. Julie Beck: It should not be controversial to plead for Gaza's children Perhaps to help solve logistical questions—and perhaps to add reputational gloss to its efforts—GHF hired the Boston Consulting Group. But after violence broke out, that company withdrew from the contract. Later that same day, GHF appointed its new executive chairman, Johnnie Moore, who insisted that his agency was 'demonstrating that it is possible to move vast quantities of food to people who need it most.' In all cases, an organization delivering goods must optimize distribution routes that align with the community it's delivering to. Israel's lack of trust for experienced relief groups doesn't justify ignoring what those operations learned about moving supplies. Many distribution systems rely on what are known as micro-fulfillment centers—local warehouses, delivery hubs, temporary facilities—to provide goods closer to where the community is. This is why, a few years ago, the COVID-vaccine-distribution efforts that drew so heavily on local doctors and pharmacies were prioritized over larger-scale efforts. Employing many small distribution sites promotes flexibility; the system can adapt to changes in demand. The GHF has provided only four distribution centers, presumably for security reasons, in all of Gaza, down from the 400 that the UN once managed; many Palestinians must now walk hours to have any hope of picking up a food package. No rational system of distribution, under any circumstances, would work this way. GHF increased the security risk by having fewer, not more, distribution sites. The organization also seemed unprepared when tens of thousands of people converged on those sites. Forgive the comparison, but American retail stores planning for Black Friday sales have come to understand—in some cases because of past tragedies at a ' crush point '—the need for information systems that collect data on where the demand is coming from and that help organizations meet that demand quickly. Surely Israel could have anticipated the sheer desperation of Gaza's Palestinians after it cut off relief efforts for months. Especially in hard circumstances, how the last mile will work must be clearly explained to those on the receiving end. In large-scale logistics efforts, the mechanics of how delivery will occur—who needs the information, when they need it, and through which communications channels it will be delivered—are all integral parts of the process. Whole systems of real-time tracking, delivery windows, and notifications are there for Israel to use, even against what it perceives as a hostile population. But information about food availability has been scarce by all accounts. Al Jazeera reported that some announcements last Sunday came from speakers mounted on military drones. The shortage of information led to a rush to the limited number of distribution sites. Business analogies only go so far. An aid site is not a Costco. Palestinian civilians are not retail customers. But perhaps if the Israeli government and its newly chosen relief entity had thought through any of the logistical matters that preoccupy established companies and experienced aid agencies alike, many more Palestinians would be receiving the food aid they badly need, faster and more safely.
