Brigitte Gabriel, the founder of ACT for America, took to Twitter late evening to accuse Tehran of stall tactics in the negotiation, praising President Trump for seeing through the alleged lies. This tweet kicked up an uproar, with many responding either with full-on support or distant skepticism.
Advertisement
Gabriel did not specify which lies she referred to, but in keeping with the usual anti-Iranian rhetoric, it probably aligned with the current tensions between the U.S. and the Iranian regime. There was a link attached to the tweet; however, it rolled to a now either deleted or non-public page, leaving followers only to guess what the context had been.
One of the very first to reply was a certain John B., who curtly said: “Should never tried to negotiate Islamic terrorists to begin with.” This again is a common mantra of many hardliners on the right who yet see drawing Iran into discussions as pointless. Then, Scarlett came roaring to the rescue: “Trump got this, the ayatollahs are toast! #MAGA.” The hashtag #MAGA, short for “Make America Great Again,” serves as the call to arms for the Trump base. Obviously, this insinuates that Gabriel’s crowd is predominantly Trump-centric.
Other reactions were different. Aussie Persian, an Iranian expatriate, objected to Gabriel’s characterization: “Please stop using the word ‘Iranians,’ they are the Islamic terrorist regime in Iran. They do not represent us at all.” It is always a back-and-forth debate—whether or not to distinguish between Iranian government and its people. Many Iranian dissidents and expats argue that conflating the two will only hurt the common citizens who are already fighting to oppose the regime.
Charlie Go provides a more critical view querying Trump’s follow-through. “Brigitte, that’s optimistic, but isn’t it a little bit naive?” he said. “Trump seems to be backing out of everything at the last minute: tariffs, Gaza, Yemen, and now Iran.” That kind of skepticism mirrors a wider frustration among some conservatives who feel that Trump’s tough talk isn’t always backed up with action.
Meanwhile, Nottakin issued a warning against wasting time: “Stalling is how they’ve gotten this close to having nukes. The time is NOW to destroy any possibility of them succeeding.” This is a cry of urgency for those who view the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat.
On the other side of the spectrum, MortonMania2 dismissed Trump anywhere: “massive failure already, no one respects him.” The wide contrast of the replies gives us a picture of how divisive Trump is still even within conservative circles.
Their conversation turned slightly sideways when DesiSpaniard threw Pakistan into the mix, asking: “Kindly ask @realDonaldTrump to kill F16 Switch or stop their use, now that Pakistan has not complied for even 2 hours the ceasefire which he and his team helped achieve?” Although that is digressing, it also goes to show how global conflicts regularly bump into each other gripping online discourse.
Gabriel’s tweet and the ensuing responses show how wide and deep the fissures are not just over Iran but also over Trump-style leadership and whether or not aggressive bluster ever really amounts to anything. One view finds him a supremely skillful exposer of Iranian deceit; the other sees that style of leadership as scatterbrained and futile.
Advertisement
The only clear thing is that the discussion about Iran is and will forever be volatile. With no easing in sight, members from this debate will probably keep turning up, especially with elections coming around in 2024, where foreign policy shall be one of the main issues. There is a question of whether Trump can make use of that to curtail Iran, but until then, the online canvass is a cutthroat affair as the real one.
