The Daly Weekly (3/6)

The war with Iran, Kristi Noem, Dan Crenshaw, and more!

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

---

John, I support taking it to the Iranian regime as well, and I certainly will not shed any tears over the Supreme Leader’s demise. My concern, however, is what exactly is the administration’s endgame in Iran? Is it regime change? Is it to destroy their nuclear program once and for all? Is it to destroy their ballistic missile systems? Is it to punish them for sponsoring terrorism all over the world for decades? Is it, as Trump suggested in one TS post, because Iran supposedly “interfered in the 2020 and 2024 election against Trump”? As you and Bernie pointed out in the most recent no BS Zone, the president owes the Congress and the American people a much more detailed rationale for why this action was necessary at this time. I do agree with you that there IS a case to be made, but they need to make it. My fear is that Trump was emboldened by the relatively painless operation in Venezuela at the beginning of the year, and decided he can just do the same thing in any country that he feels has offended him. I’m afraid he thinks this is Venezuela 2.0, when more likely, it is Iraq 2.0. — John M.

Hi John. I think many of your concerns are valid. The administration’s messaging has been all over the place, and Trump has made statements over the past few days that would seem to line up with the notion that he indeed believed (or at least hoped) things would go as smoothly as with Venezuela. That said, it seems that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CENTCOM have a pretty good handle on the situation so far. So does the Israeli government, who understands the stakes and complexities much better than our president. The primary objective, despite Pete Hegseth’s press conference tap-dancing, seems to be to totally degrade or dismantle the current regime, including their leadership, military, and major weapons systems, with the ultimate goal of regime change.

That’s easier said than done, of course, but I think we have a good shot at success, and that would pay dividends to the Middle East and the free world for a long time.

Why is it easier to kill an evil, Hitler clone, Iranian Dictator, than it is to pass the Save Act, that 95% of all Republicans support, 70% of Democrats support, and 85% of all Americans support. — Rob O.

Because Operation Epic Fury has been an executive action (in coordination with Israel), and passing a bill into law requires approval from both branches of Congress and a presidential signature. That’s the simple answer, Rob (though I suspect your question was probably rhetorical).

You are correct. Very sad. Political civil war in the near future? — Robert C.

I guess that’s one way of phrasing it, Robert. Like I said in a recent piece, I think there’s a fight to be had for the future of the Republican Party once Trump has been sidelined.

Kristi Noem is finally gone! Are you surprised? — Alex D.

No, but I find it amusing what finally sunk her. It wasn’t her smearing a couple of Americans killed by ICE agents as “domestic terrorists.” It wasn’t her bypassing due-process to send asylum-seekers to a third-world prison. It wasn’t her carrying on an extramarital affair with Corey Lewandowski on the government dime (including a luxury $70 million jet). It wasn’t her awarding, through an irregular process, federal contracts to a company she is closely tied to. It wasn’t her spending over $220 million (again of taxpayers’ money) on a self-aggrandizing ad campaign. What got her in hot water was that she revealed, in a recent Senate hearing, that President Trump had pre-approved that ad-spending. That apparently sent Trump over the edge.

Do you not think there’s ANY future now for Dan Crenshaw in politics? — Ben G.

Oh, maybe in some capacity there is, but I don’t think he could win another GOP primary at this point — not unless the party goes through a major transformation once Trump’s gone.

I do agree that we need both strong Democratic AND Republican conservative party. How to get this done over time? Aloha, Mike

I think party primaries are a big part of the answer, Mike. More voters need to participate in them. Only about 20% of eligible voters currently do, which leaves the increasingly important nomination process up to a relatively small number of people, who tend to have more radical views than the average voter. I’d also like to see ranked-choice primary voting continue to grow in this country.

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.