Folks, I’m starting to get a real uneasy feeling about Vice President J.D. Vance. I hate to say that, I hate to even think that, because up to a few months ago, my support for him was rock solid. But after the onset of the Iran War, he started losing me to what appeared to be a very unseemly strain of either appeasement or antisemitism. Or both. It abated for a while, but reappeared immediately after our midterm loss on Tuesday.
The reason we lost the midterms is “obvious to almost everyone,” posted Vance on X. "The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next six years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest. But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there."
Okay, let’s have that honest conversation. First off, we didn’t lose the Senate for the next six years. We lost the Senate for the next two years. In 2028, we have the chance to take it back.
Second, calling the Iran War the “reason we lost” means different things to different people. To me, and to every conservative I know, our disillusionment comes not with President Trump’s decision to attack Iran in February but because here we are in November, and instead of long ago crushing these 7th-century pederasts, we’re still trying to play Let’s Make a Deal with them. It’s unbecoming of our military capabilities, our security commitments, and, frankly, our reputation.
And why has the Iran War dragged on this long? Because the peace wing of the Trump administration (Vance/Witkoff) won the day over the finish-them-off wing (Rubio/Hegseth/Ratcliffe). You can’t advocate against finishing the war and then blame the unfinished war for your electoral loss.
To the frothing ayatollahs in Tehran, this war is about Islam. To the rest of the world, this war is about America. If we lack the resolve to win even the most lopsided of conflicts, we will lose our influence in the world.
But Vance doesn’t see genocidal Islam as the problem. Vance sees Israel as the problem, and maintains that we must “change our relationship to Israel.” All due respect to Vance, but this assessment plays into the wishful thinking that if we just give our enemies a few more concessions, they’ll agree to live with us in peace. Neville Chamberlain made the same mistake.
It didn’t work with the Nazis, it didn't work with the Soviets, and it won’t work now because that’s not how the totalitarian mindset works. I suspect that the call to “change our relationship to Israel” translates to “throwing Israel to the Islamic wolves.” And all that will do is embolden the Islamists further. They will (rightfully) see this not as a catalyst for permanent peace, but as a stepping stone, provided yet again on the backs of weak, gullible Westerners. You think Hasan Piker and Ilhan Omar and Zohran Mamdani are problematic? Wait until you see who the Democrats trot out for the next election. Piker and Co. will look like quaint moderates in comparison.
The shortsighted among us may ponder why we even need to have military alliances with other nations. But the military protection we provide to weaker nations is leverage to get other economic and political concessions we want. Our alliances are also a means to keep the wars on other people’s shores rather than our own. And they make our enemies think twice before taking on an entire alliance rather than picking off their individual enemies one at a time.
Yes, we help Israel because Israel is the only democracy in a sea of decrepit barbarism, but we also do it to keep Islamism from spreading. Yes, we help Ukraine because it is a sovereign Western nation that was unjustly invaded, but we also do it to keep Russian imperialism from spreading. Yes, we help South Korea and Taiwan because they, also, are modern democracies, but we also do it to keep North Korean and Chinese communism from spreading.
Our enemies refuse to share this world with us peaceably, because our continued existence, and especially our success, is a slap in the face to the ideologies on which our enemies’ systems of governance were founded. For them, this is a zero-sum game that they will continue to fight until either they or we are destroyed. If we are unwilling to fight them, then we need to at least be willing to contain them.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s Diplomacy 101. But never mind that. Never mind thousands of years of diplomats forming alliances in order to maintain peace. If we just leave the Islamists alone and throw Israel as a piece of red meat, they’ll leave us alone then, right?
Right?
Based on what I’m hearing from Trump, I don’t think he has come to the same conclusion as Vance. In remarks yesterday, Trump said he agreed that higher gas prices resulting from the Iran War probably helped Republicans lose the midterms. However — and this is the important distinction — Trump then said, "But at the same time, if I had it to do again, I'd have to do it again, because long term, it's the only answer. […] You have no choice. You have to do it. You can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon or everything that you see here someday might not exist."
Vance’s assessment: It would have been worth letting Iran get a nuclear bomb if it would have meant Republicans won the midterms.
Trump’s assessment: There will be no such thing as midterms should Iran get a nuclear bomb. I’m playing the long game. The security of America, and preventing Islamic terrorists from acquiring nukes, is more important than a single midterm.
What Trump displayed is leadership. Real leadership. He made a tough decision, one that he knew might backfire at the polls, and he stood by that decision. And as much as the midterm loss stings, the alternative to Trump’s decision is unfathomable.
Moving forward, Trump understands the need to finish off Iran. I think he’s known that for months, and that he was waiting until after midterms. I think that was a tactical error, but now the gloves are off, and there’s nothing holding him back. Let the Islamo-Democrats and Tucker squeal. I hope Trump finishes the job.
But Trump and Vance aren’t on the same page anymore. And this isn’t just a difference of opinion. Trump’s approach and Vance’s approach represent two diverging and incompatible worldviews. Vance might be right that MAGA voters don’t want prolonged war. But neither do they want Chamberlain-style appeasers. And blaming the JOOOS for Islamic tyranny might win over the Carlsons and Massies and Greenes, but it won’t win elections, and it won’t solve our problems.
The 2028 presidential candidate I vote for needs to fully comprehend this. I believe Marco Rubio does. I believe Ron DeSantis does.
I’ll leave it at that.
In the meantime, make peace and speak the truth.