Pearl-Clutching for the Ayatollah

Pearl-Clutching for the Ayatollah

Nothing says, "We have the moral high ground" like wagging your finger at America while cozying up to a fascist theocracy that's basically a masterclass in medieval brutality.

Kevin Finn for American Thinker

Congratulations, Leftists! Give yourselves another round of applause in the hallowed halls of hypocrisy. The U.S. has finally decided to drop a few precision-guided reality checks on the Iranian regime. You know them, right? The ones who've been playing global chess with human lives as pawns.

But wait! What do we hear? A chorus of objections from the usual suspects: the U.N., the Vatican, Spain, the U.K., and -- drumroll, please -- the Democrat Party. Because nothing says, "We have the moral high ground" like wagging your finger at America while cozying up to a fascist theocracy that's basically a masterclass in medieval brutality.

First off, let's talk about the late Ayatollah Ali Khameini. This was the guy the leftist media referred to as "avuncular," with a "gentle smile" and a fondness for western literature, like Les Miserables. Remember the 2022 protests in response to the death of Mahsa Amini?She let a few strands of hair escape her hijab and they killed her for it. Khameini's goons responded to the subsequent protests by blinding women with pellet guns and murdering protesters in the streets. And that's just the appetizer.

The main course includes proxy attacks on other nations -- funding Hezb’allah to lob rockets at Israel, arming the Houthis to disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea, and generally turning the Middle East into their personal playground of chaos. Oh, and let's not forget their nuclear program: thumbing their nose at every international restriction, all while chanting "Death to America.”

So, why the hand-wringing from the U.N. -- that bastion of nobility where dictators get veto power and human rights abusers chair committees on human rights? They're objecting to the strike because it might "escalate tensions" or "violate sovereignty." Please. The U.N. is like the world's lamest hall monitor, scolding the kid who punches the bully after years of stolen lunch money. If the U.N. spent half as much time condemning Khameini's daily atrocities as they do drafting resolutions against Israel or the U.S., there might be fewer mass graves in Tehran.

And then there's the Vatican, ever the voice of peace and compassion. Pope Leo is out there urging dialogue with a regime that hangs teenagers for protesting and stones women for "adultery" after being raped. Dialogue? With monsters who blind their own daughters for wanting freedom? The Vatican's objections feel less like divine wisdom and more like a reflexive anti-war stance that conveniently overlooks the war Iran wages on the innocent every day.

Those stalwarts of European sophistication, Spain and the U.K., aren't far behind in the objection parade. Spain decried the attack as "unilateral aggression," as if Iran's blinding of women or murder of LGBTQ+ individuals is just cultural quirkiness. And the U.K.? Ah, jolly old England, with its stiff upper lip amidst a subculture of Islamic rape gangs, is urging restraint. PM Keir Starmer tuts about international law while the mullahs laughed off every IAEA report on its nuclear shenanigans. These countries love to lecture us on imperialism, but when it comes to supporting a regime that's exported more misery than oil, they're all in.

Which brings us to the Democrat Party. They clamor for diplomacy, as if Khameini hasn't spent decades using "diplomacy" as code for "we need to buy time to build some nukes." This is the party that claims to champion women's rights, LGBTQ+ equality, and anti-oppression movements at home. Yet here they are, siding with a regime that makes The Handmaid's Tale look like a Hallmark movie. What is it, a lingering Obama-era nostalgia for the JCPOA deal that enriched Iran? Or is it just a knee-jerk opposition to anything with a Republican stamp? Whatever it is, it's a sight to behold: Leftists defending an Islamo-fascist theocracy that would slaughter half their voter base just for existing.

The real question, though, is this: Why would anyone in a Western democracy -- lands of freedom and equality -- support such a murderous regime? Is it a misguided belief that opposing America is always the "enlightened" choice, no matter the cost? Or is it cultural relativism, where we excuse barbarism because it's wrapped in "anti-imperialist" rhetoric?

Here's a newsflash -- supporting Khameini's Iran isn't progressive, it's regressive. These objectors claim to stand for peace, but what they're really enabling is the peace of slavery or the peace of the grave for Iran's oppressed millions.

This cacophony of objections isn't about justice or morality -- let's face it, those are foreign concepts to the Left -- this is about posturing. The U.S. attack, messy as it may be, targets a regime that represents an existential threat to its people and the world. If the U.N., the Vatican, Spain, the U.K., and the Democrats truly cared about human rights, they'd be cheering from the sidelines, not clutching their pearls.

But hey, who am I to judge? After all, in the theater of global politics, hypocrisy is the longest-running show.

Curtain call, Leftists -- take a bow.

Image: AT via Magic Studio