I honestly believe that if Osama bin Laden had been killed on Donald Trump’s watch, Democrats would have been upset about it. Seriously, what else are we to think based on their reactions to what’s happening in Iran right now? I’d love to believe that the left has America’s best interests at heart, but they sure do spend a lot of time and energy making it clear they don’t.
And frankly, they’re trying so desperately to make the attack on Iran a political liability for Trump that they aren’t even trying to make solid arguments. Case in point, CNN’s Abby Phillip tried her hardest Tuesday night to poke holes in the U.S. strikes on Iran, and Scott Jennings schooled her so hard it was ridiculous.
Phillip opened by questioning the logic of the military campaign, comparing it to last year’s bombing campaign.
“If bombs dropping on the nuclear program and destroying them last year didn’t help move forward those objectives of deterring the regime, why do we think that suddenly this is going to do the same thing?”
She’s not really this dumb, is she?
Naturally, Jennings pointed out the obvious.
“Because the people who weren’t deterred are now dead,” he said. “That’s number one.”
It’s hard to believe that Phillip really couldn’t see the fundamental difference, but again, this had less to do with the legitimacy of the question and more to do with finding some argument against Trump that would stick.
And, of course, it didn’t.
Phillip’s rebuttal wasn’t any better. She argued that Iran has plenty of people to replace whoever is killed. Jennings didn’t dispute that, but noted she was essentially making the case for continuing to strike. She kept pressing: 72 hours in, no political changes in Tehran, so what’s the point?
Jennings walked through the justification methodically. The ballistic missile threat was real. Secretary of State Rubio said Iran was preparing to target American bases if Israel moved against them. The United States decided it wasn’t willing to absorb that strike. So they hit first. “You can agree with it, disagree with it, but that is the justification,” Jennings said flatly.
Then Washington Post analyst Josh Rogin jumped in, demanding to know where Jennings actually stood.
“But where do you stand, Scott? Are you for this invasion or not? You seem to be dancing around the question.”
Invasion? What invasion? Leftists keep repeating words like “invasion” and “endless war” around as if this situation bears any resemblance to either. It doesn’t.
And Jennings wasn’t letting them get away with their bogus premise.
“I think these butchers deserve to die, not just because of the missiles, not just because of the nuclear program, but for 47 years, Josh, they have waged war against western civilization, against the United States. Their mantra is ‘death to America.’ They have killed American soldiers, American personnel. They have maimed people, our people.”
ICYMI: This Bombshell About the Negotiations With Iran Changes Everything
He’s right. The Islamic Republic of Iran has spent nearly five decades funding terrorism, arming proxies across the Middle East, killing Americans in Iraq through IED networks supplied by the IRGC, and openly calling for the destruction of the United States. The idea that military action against this regime requires elaborate justification — while the 47-year war Iran has waged against America apparently needed none — says everything about how twisted the foreign policy conversation has become.
Rogin then posed a hypothetical: what if Trump cuts a deal with whoever comes next in the IRGC? Would Jennings just flip and support that, too?
“If whoever becomes the next leadership in Iran says, okay, we’re tired of being punished for missiles and nuclear weapons, that would be a good outcome,” Jennings said. “But I think we would all be happy about it.”
🚨 BOOM! Scott Jennings DROPS THE MIC on CNN’s Abby Phillip
“If the last attack on Iran didn’t deter the Iranian regime, why will this attack be different?”
JENNINGS: “Because the people who weren’t deterred are now DEAD.”
🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/lrAeUWWbYO
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 3, 2026
That’s it. That’s the whole ball game. The goal isn’t regime change for the sake of it. The goal is a Middle East where Iran can’t threaten American personnel with ballistic missiles or hold the world hostage with a nuclear program. If the next Iranian government wants to live within those parameters, great. If not, the United States has now demonstrated it’s willing to do something about it.
It’s not complicated.
