Posted on 06/13/2025 5:16:31 PM PDT by lightman
Democrat Sen. John Fetterman’s (PA) recent comments urging Israel to continue targeting Iranian leadership and nuclear personnel mark a surprising shift from the typical left-wing talking points on Middle East policy. In a bold statement that aligns more closely with a strong national defense and pro-Israel stance traditionally championed by the right, Fetterman made it clear he supports Israel’s right to defend itself with decisive action.
“Our commitment to Israel must be absolute, and I fully support this attack. Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel. We must provide whatever is necessary—military, intelligence, weaponry—to fully back Israel in striking Iran," Fetterman wrote on X.
Fetterman’s comments follow Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz’s declaration of a state of emergency, issued after Israel launched a strategic strike targeting Iranian leadership and its nuclear development infrastructure on Thursday.
The senator has been a steadfast supporter of Israel, frequently distancing himself from members of his own party who have downplayed the severity of Hamas’s terrorist attacks. On his social media, he pinned a video from 2023 showing his Senate office adorned with posters of every hostage taken by Hamas, vowing they will remain up until each individual is safely returned home.
Fetterman has strongly criticized Iran's possession of 900 pounds of uranium enriched up to 60 percent, warning that continued negotiations are futile given Iran’s clear commitment to developing a nuclear weapon. He also argued that the global community and left-leaning media should be outraged at Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the surge in antisemitism, not at Israel, which he described as the Middle East’s only true democracy and a nation that upholds genuine progressive values.
“We cannot allow that. We can’t negotiate with this regime,” he wrote on X.
Also backing Fetterman is his Republican counterpart, Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA), who voiced strong support for Israel’s military action against Iran. He called it a necessary step to stop the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism from obtaining nuclear weapons. McCormick emphasized that Iran poses a global threat and has American blood on its hands. He added that he and his wife pray for Israel’s success and affirmed his full support for the country’s efforts to protect regional and global security.
Good question. My (speculative) answer is that the mullahs are barely clinging to power. In the early years they could crack down on people flouting their edicts because the populace largely supported them. But in recent years the populace has abandoned Islam (more call themselves atheists/agnostics/none) and turned against the mullahs. When the mullahs have tried to crack down and maintain the old edicts, as in the beating death of the one young lady who wasn't wearing a hijab, the resulting uprising endangered the survival of their government. So it doesn't surprise me that the Iranian government is turning a blind eye to a lot of stuff at this point, and everyone knows it, because if the government did try to crack down the resulting uprising would be the end of them.
Slight correction - I had said more Iranians identified as nones/agnostics/atheists than Muslims (Shiite + Sunni), but I should have included humanists in the first group. It had been a while since I looked over those results.
I think I read somewhere that Starlink is now in Iran or is coming to Iran. Is this true?
I think there’s a ouija board in his fat head: Who knows where it will end up on any issue.
Yeah, McCormick was the CEO of Ray Dalio’s CIA hedge fund.
No wonder he’s all for war!
If you’re a vet, you should know better than to push our getting into another ME war.
Since I’m a veteran I understand that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary government started an existential war with the United States on November 4, 1979. “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” is their raison d’être.
That was the CIA putting the Mullahs in place when, ironically, the Shah we had put in place wanted nukes. We can’t have wars without competition—or with too strong, economic competition.
I’d look a little deeper into what you were fighting for whom.
Oh, right. I must be pro-Iran.
Some bloodthirsty Freepers just go crazy when war arises.
Some, as I will give you the benefit of the doubt as being one of, are stuck in whatever propaganda they had their heads filled with in the military so they would fight unquestioningly.
I really can’t engage with such a deficient pattern of thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.