Note to Democrat Supporters: Yes, Harris Would Have Led Us into War with Iran
Considering the disaster that the current billionaire class rep in the White House is now overseeing in the Middle East, the partisan, tribalistic supporters of the other billionaire wing are predictably arguing that working class people who voted against Harris must now be having “buyer’s remorse.”
That is, they’re arguing that Harris would not have started a war with Iran. And that Trump is doing it not because he’s a tool for the Deep State and the Military Industrial Complex that has wanted war with Iran for a long time now, but because he’s a Republican. Or because “he’s Trump.” And that Harris, or any Democrat, would be a sane voice for peace compared to him.
Wake up, people! Let’s prove those tribal loyalists wrong right here and now, so they can drop the “team sport” nonsense and start opposing war by opposing billionaire rule altogether.
Kamala Harris Considered Iran the “Worst Threat” to the USA
On June 16, 2025, Polling USA acknowledged the fact that the Biden/Harris stance on funding Israel’s genocide in Gaza was the main reason (besides ignoring bread and butter issues in favor of identity politics) that they refused to vote for Harris, and attempted to inflict that “buyer’s remorse” on those voters with the following tweet:
“Remember how people didn’t want to vote for Harris because of Gaza and because she would apparently pull the United States into a war.” Meaning, it was ironic that Trump did that anyway, and implying she wouldn’t have.
As Professor Anthony Zenkus responded:
“Yes, she would have. Here she is in October [of 2024, on 60 Minutes] saying that Iran is the biggest threat to the US. That coupled with her refusal to condition aid to Israel, let alone her refusal to commit to an arms embargo, makes it pretty clear.”
And let’s not forget how the Democrats convinced their followers that it was Putin, not Netanyahu, who was the biggest lunatic among national leaders and the greatest threat to the world at the time. You know, because they had a lucrative proxy war going on in Ukraine that Dem supporters ate right up as a “good vs. evil” thing. And that anyone who pointed out the sordid lies behind such ideological claims by the government in the past were guilty of “whataboutism.”
Never mind the fact that Putin only invaded Ukraine due to the actions of the U.S. and NATO enacting a coup to the government in 2014, with the new government repeatedly attacking the Donbas region of ethnic Russians while claiming (falsely, btw) that Ukraine was offered membership in NATO, thus bringing them right up to Putin’s doorstep.
The U.S. government went out of their way to poke the bear, and when Ursa Major responded in expected fashion, they marked the bear as a lunatic despot who wanted to take over the entire world, staring with his nearest neighbor.
The Dems claimed he was the worst threat since Hitler, and that’s all their supporters were concerned with to justify the use of military force and billions of dollars thrown into the war that was not being spent to help the American working class economically. And at a time when grocery prices, rent costs, home ownership, and the cost of living in general skyrocketed while low-paying service sector jobs and unreliable gig work predominated the labor landscape.
Except, that is, when they claimed the worst threat was Iran. Or China. Or was it North Korea some other week? The point is, the Deep State wanted war with all three, so the hawkishness of the government was rationalized by the Dem supporters as being heroic motivation to stop a dictator from doing his thing.
They only opposed wars when Bush or Trump — and presumably some other Republican — were fighting them. Proving, again, that they’ve been motivated by blind partisan loyalty throughout the neoliberal era, ignoring how much the party had gone astray from its pro-working class roots by the Carter administration onwards.
As Due Dissidence hosts Keaton Weiss and Russell Dobular put it for their detailed analysis of all this, including the Dems falling in line behind Trump’s air strike on Iran:
Keaton: “See, so we would have got World War III anyway…”
Russell: “So, yes, the Deep State wanted it, the Deep State was gonna get it.”
Chuck Schumer Goads Trump into Attacking Iran
Now, let’s talk next about the justifiably much-maligned Chuck Schumer. Dem supporters have no problem tolerating the likes of him as Senate Minority Speaker as long as he remains a registered Democrat.
As Peter Daou noted in a tweet: “For those who think Democrats are better, Chuck Schumer goading Trump into war with Iran,” underneath which he re-tweeted a message from Schumer where the latter said, regarding Trump’s recent (but phony) initial talks about a peace deal with Iran: “If TACO Trump is already folding on Iran, the American people need to know about it. No side deals.”
It was accompanied by clips from a “tough” video of Schumer on CBS News clamoring for war with Iran.
Once again, they claim that a uranium enrichment program for energy generation, which they have a right to do under international law, is actually about creating a nuclear weapon. Because in the Middle East, only Israel should have nuclear weapons (actually, no one should, but that’s somewhat beside the point here).
Wow, Schumer calls Iran a “terrorist government.” That must have made it true in the eyes of Dem supporters… until Trump won the election and took over the war, I suppose. That sure sounds like the Dems want to make a peace deal with Iran, doesn’t it? Only the Republicans serve the Deep State agenda, hmm?
Hakeem Jeffries’ Stance on Starting a War With Iran Depends on Which Party Holds the White House
Whenever a Dem supporter tells you how much they loathe a certain nation or leader, and how that country needs to get obliterated by military force, has “nothing to do” with party loyalty, please take a look at the following. Here you’ll see how waffling based on tribalistic loyalty is done, courtesy of Hakeem Jeffries.
On April 13, 2024, during the Biden administration, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries tweeted the following statement regarding the brief exchange of missile fire between Israel and Iran that occurred shortly before that:
Sounds like blind loyalty to Israel alongside blind loyalty to his party. Because, yanno, AIPAC and Mossad has both wings of the Capitalist Duopoly by the proverbial ‘nads.
“Our Democratic ally, the state of Israel,” he said. As Russell Dobular points out in response to this (see above linked video):
I wonder why this country… where we whacked [Iran’s] democratically elected leader [Prime Minister Mohammad] Mosaddegh back in [1953] and installed a brutal, autocratic Shah who tortured political dissidents, precipitating revolution, I wonder why these people would have a sworn enmity towards us. I can’t imagine. And then this country did a nuclear deal with us that the next president quickly went back on. I can’t imagine why they would have antipathy towards us.
And guess what? Soon after that, Rep. Jeffries received a donation of $1,472,105.00 from AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby! Just a coincidence, I’m sure. And it is a mere coincidence as far as the Dem supporters are concerned, right? One must wonder how Jeffries ascended up the ladder of leadership like that, huh? Hint: If you are a politician in either wing of the Duopoly, you either support Israel or you’re out. And if you do support them, princely rewards and permission to rise in power await thee.
But after Trump’s victory, and the Orange Guy’s authorized air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Jeffries did a total 180, insisting that Trump has no right to declare war on any country because only Congress has that right. Which is technically true, but he’s willfully ignoring the fact that presidents have been declaring war without congressional approval since Vietnam… and that was one of several such wars started by a Democrat administration.
Note this tweet of his on June 22, 2025:
Would he have held Harris to this standard? Would he be overly concerned about consequences for this action if it was any Democrat president who did this?
Would the Dem supporters be complaining if Harris had done this rather than Trump? Or would they be insisting that Netanyahu had to be tossed into the same pressure cooker as Putin and the leader of any other nation a Dem administration put in their crosshairs?
I’m sure if it was Biden or Harris or any Dem president who authorized the strike, he would be blaming any potential consequences entirely on Iran, not the actions of the president. They had to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon! Only Republican presidents lie about stuff like a nation possessing WMDs, or on the verge of developing them, blah blah blah… amirite?
Do we seriously believe at this point that Harris would not have gone to war with Iran? That the Duopoly as a whole was not part of the plan that was clearly started under the Biden/Harris administration? Note that Harris preferred to lose the election rather than go against Israel and win working class props by denouncing the slaughter in Gaza.
More importantly, do we seriously believe at this point that the Dems and Repubs are opponents who are against what the other is doing? That one serves the Deep State and the Military Industrial Complex, and the other supports Democracy and the working class? I’m posing this question to both libs and MAGA here, btw.
As Russell Dobular pointed out regarding some of the mindless support for this action by mindless supporters of both wings of the Duopoly:
If this had happened under Harris, MAGA would be universally losing their mind; they’d all be talking about impeachment.
And every single Democrat would be praising her resolve. And probably if it had been Harris, [the Dems] would be calling it sexism ’cause she’s a woman declaring war rather than a man declaring war… especially a black woman; they [MAGA, but likely even the war protesters on the Classical Left or among Libertarians] have a problem with a black woman assuming the powers that all the white men who came before her assumed.
This is an indictment against tribal loyalty to a specific party or personality in general, even though my main intention here is to make a point against claims that Dems and their working class supporters are all about principle rather than partisan loyalty. Loyalists from both wings of the capitalist uni-party are guilty of this.
Hey, at Least David Hogg Opposed the War! But Look What Happened to Him…
David Hogg was a young Democrat hopeful who served as Co-Vice Chair of the DNC that ended up being removed just a few months later. Was he a radical Leftist in favor of Industrial Democracy, or at least some lower key social democratic reforms? No, he was a moderate who simply believed that younger people should be given a chance in Congress rather than 92-year-old geriatrics staying in office until the second they exit the mortal coil.
As a youth liberationist, I concur, considering older people in positions of authority have consistently demonstrated that more often than not they aren’t fountains of flowing wisdom, but “set in their ways”; whereas younger people are typically more conducive to change.
But that’s a whole other topic and relevantly, it’s not the only thing that caused Hogg to be attacked by his fellow Democrats and ousted. He was also against fighting more pointless wars that were costly in terms of both capital (greatly needed elsewhere) and human lives.
On June 16, 2025, he posted the following tweet: “Any Democrat who supports this war on Iran needs to be primaried. Our generation grew up going through two multi trillion dollar wars we should have never been involved in. We are not fucking going back to that. If you think this is a good idea read a history book.”
Well said. But not well agreed upon within the DNC. Hogg must be just a kid who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, right? Because four days later the DNC voted to remove Hogg from the position of Vice Chair.
I suppose we’ll go with the Dems’ idea that a better way to get young people back into their fold — especially if they happen to be white, male, and heterosexual — is to enlist a weight-challenged lesbian lib to talk them into it (why not try to weaponize Lib Identity Politics against them again, and see how that works out?). And I guess they’re more confident that geriatrics will be less radical (with good reason).
Van Jones Puts the Nail in the Coffin
Most of the libs must love Van Jones, a well-known commentator on CNN. His views are fully in line with the Democrats and he clearly benefits from the access to their voices which it gives him.
Yet he is vehemently supportive of Trump about going to war with Iran, which means it’s clear to him where his bread is truly buttered. Hint: the same ones who butter the bread of both the wealthy Democrats and Republicans in Washington and their respective sycophantic mainstream media outlets.
Based on Jones’s recent ‘Table for Five’ appearance on CNN (see clip on Due Dissidence video linked above), Michael Tracey noted the following in a June 21st, 2025 tweet: “CNN superstar Van Jones says he was ‘just in the Holy Land’ [that’s Iran to you un-holeys out there] recently and it’s time for ‘progressives’ to ‘get on board’ with bombing Iran.”
He claims that Iran is “not a normal country” and that they “blind women” because “they showed some hair” and that they “empower little gangs” to go around “firing missiles” and “raping people.” And that they allegedly said “Death to America,” “Death to Israel,” and “Death to all Jews.”
Hence, he says, Iran needs to be “blown up” and “progressives” (that is, Dem supporters) need to start cheerleading for more military death and obliteration.
Yes, seriously. Is there actual evidence for any of this?
As Russell Dobular said in response:
There is absolutely no freakin’ way he believes a word that he just said. … Now, listen, I must say that I don’t claim to be an expert on Iran, and I would not say that, ‘Oh no, Iran is a liberal paradise on the Western model.’ I think I can say with some confidence that the caricature we got of Iran [from Jones] is B.S.
And I say that with some confidence based on a few data points.
One, and you can look this up; I did. It has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel. How is that possible… if they are virulently anti-Jewish and not [simply] anti-Zionist? I’ve met rabbis here in New York who have traveled to Iran multiple times [note: both Keaton and Russell are Jewish] and they say they are treated very well.
Something very indicative to me that they cannot be as described by Van Jones there: there’s an international association of tour guides. And they have an annual conference. They had it a few years ago in Iran. Now, if you know tour guides and the kind of people who are tour guides… those people would not last five minutes in a country like Van Jones just described. There is no way that you could have a tour guide convention in that country if it were actually that repressive.
Also, I’ve seen a lot of videos taken on the streets of Iran… where women have their hair showing. Now, again, I’m not going to say it’s some kind of liberal Western paradise. But, this is a grotesque caricature…
Even if it were not, we just sold Saudi Arabia what, 400 million dollars worth of weapons?* So, that has nothing to do with it anyway.
Note: Saudi Arabia is much more repressive in terms of imposing Sharia Law on its citizens than Iran. And the former is one of the U.S.’s main allies in the Middle East.
But for Van Jones… who almost certainly knows better, to go on CNN and whore himself out as the resident ‘progressive’… supposedly giving them a ‘progressive’ cover for these Deep State agendas… really, really just disgusting, disgraceful what he’s willing to do.
Hmmm, will the Dem supporters in the working class now be siding with Trump on this and kissing the ass of Israel because so many Dem politicians and media stars are doing it? They’re supposed to hate Trump and be against everything that he’s against, right? Let’s see what happens.
Now, What About AOC? Isn’t She Against the War in Iran?
Of course, AOC, who is always quick to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon and pretend to be “progressive,” admonished Trump in a tweet for authorizing the bombing salvo on Iran and risk starting a war without congressional approval.
“It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,” she said.
To which Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted in response:
Shut up[,] you pathetic little hypocrite.
YOU fully supported our military and IC running the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
And you VOTED to fund the Ukraine war under your President with dementia.
You don’t get to play anti-war and moral outrage anymore.
Oof. Now why don’t you tell us what you really think of AOC, Madame Greene!
But she’s right. Not that Taylor Greene should be so hard on AOC, considering she was just as afraid to go against the president under a Republican administration about the war on Iran as AOC was against Biden regarding Ukraine. All of these politicians are hypocritically partisan, and most of their public opposition is all theater for their supporting concubines.
If only the Dem supporters, and everyone in the working class who supports either wing of the Duopoly, would wake up. Only a united working class can stop the wars and most of the other problems caused by our capitalist world order.
The billionaires themselves are not going to fix the problems, but perpetuate them. They do not live by the same rules as we do, do not have the same concerns that we do, and do not share the same values as we do.
If you seriously think they are people you could see yourself sitting down and having a drink with, then why haven’t any of them ever invited any of us to do so at one of their exclusive country clubs? Why do none of them ever step into an inner city local tavern to throw back a couple of cold ones with you or me?
As of now, the Republicans are getting their turn to wreck the world and make things worse for the working class. Saying the Democrats wouldn’t have done this is pure tribalistic Cope when you look at the actual evidence… and consider who funds them both.
*Imagine what the U.S. government could do with that 400 mil if it were spent on helping American workers economically. Remember this the next time a conservative — or even a shitlib — claims that the U.S. government doesn’t have enough money to help us out, and it would “go broke” if it did.