We finally bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Without opposition, the Israelis and then the U.S. hit the major sites. At this point, we don’t know the extent of the damage. An earlier leaked assessment said it might have only set the program back for a few months, while others have said it had done such damage that Iran will need years to get back on track. Without people on the ground, a definitive answer is impossible, but if and when Israel goes in again, it will tell us what the nation at existential risk has determined.

A decade ago, I proposed bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. If they revive the program, we should strike back. Living in a real version of the Myth of Sisyphus, the Mullahs would eventually tire of pushing the boulder up the mountain, only to start again. So long as Israel controls the skies over Iran, follow-up attacks will take place as needed. It was a good plan then, and it remains so now.

Stopping religious fanatics from possessing weapons of mass destruction removes a grave threat not only to Israel but also from Iran’s long-range missile development to everyone else on Earth. If we denied North Korea and Pakistan nuclear weapons, we’d all sleep better. Iran is much scarier—every day, it’s death to America and death to Israel, and they mean it.

One might think we’d have a national sigh of relief, knowing Iran isn’t about to have nuclear warheads topping Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) aimed at us, but some aren’t cheering. Some Democratic leaders alluded to the leaked study.

The information is preliminary and labeled as having low confidence. Yet, the left-leaning legacy media pounced on it and spread it far and wide. Instead of lauding our military for its work, publicizing a possible Trump failure took precedence. Democratic politicians joined in.

This response seems to reinforce the perception of an anti-Israel bias by the left in its conflict with Iran. Support for pro-Hamas, an Iranian ally, and protesters who harassed Jews by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party indicates the left is anti-Semitic.

These positions are unpopular with most Americans, so why take them? If Donald Trump does something, it isn’t good, regardless of the circumstances. If Trump declares ‘Dog is a Noble Animal Day,’ the left would demand a roundup of mutts. This knee-jerk reaction appears thoughtless. How does it equate with having a winning election message?

The recent New York City mayoral primary may offer insight into progressive thinking. Put a young, glib candidate up to contrast against aging leaders. Please make sure they are social media savvy. Zero in on likely voters and promise them free stuff. Pose as a fighter for the working class, but be aware that your support, voting, and financial contributions come from the highly educated class.

This tactic worked for progressives such as AOC in the past, and it worked to perfection for Zohran Mamdani. Young, articulate, and highly energetic, he was a stark contrast to his main competitor, the tainted former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. With Democrats holding a significant numerical advantage and the opposition divided, possibly between Republicans, Curtis Sliwa, the current mayor, Adams running independently, and Cuomo, he’s likely to win.

What is striking is the limited appeal of his positions. His support came from the highly educated young voters who turned out in large numbers. He lost the working class. Rent control, high minimum wages, and government stores with the rich paying are old themes that haven’t worked. He has made anti-Israel comments. This outcome illustrates how primaries deliver an extreme candidate.

Many democrats are lauding Mamdani for standing up to the current president with “principled stands.” This reaction recalls when Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, the most progressive state, debated Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida. The Florida governor drew substantive, favorable comparisons showing how his small-government policies led to a superior economy and better education. Speaking in platitudes, Newsome was glib and well-spoken but light on substance.

Even the fact that California is losing its population while Florida is rapidly growing didn’t stop the left-leaning media from praising Newsom’s performance. How does ever-increasing spending mesh with an ever-decreasing tax base? This response shows the divide. Even if unworkable, merely adhering to progressive dogma earns you plaudits on the left. This outcome means primary winners and deep blue areas in elections. Only term limits prevent Newsome from re-election. The focus on next-rung thinking prevails.

We have real problems demanding real solutions. Attractive candidates with entertaining videos promising all sorts of free stuff appeal only to a minority. More and more Democrats find themselves on the short end of 80-20 issues. Antisemitism, men in girls’ sports, socialism, wild green New Deal spending, Iran getting a nuclear bomb, and the border are issues with the majority at odds with the left.

Progressives wind up in strange situations, such as where they claim to represent Latinos (Latinx to progressives), but Democrats are bleeding these voters. Claiming to be a socialist strikes out with Venezuelan and Cuban migrants. They lived under Marxism and fled. Not shy about telling their neighbors, they make it uncool for candidates to sport their socialism.

The Labor Party in the U.K. went down a similar road, with socialism and anti-Semitism. It almost destroyed the party. Only a purge of the far-left anti-semites brought the party back to winning positions.

So long as the far left is dominating the media, it becomes the face of the party, and the more the Democrats’ irreverence grows. The older Democratic leaders who won elections are exiting the stage right. Just Trump being Trump hasn’t made Democrats more popular. Resistance isn’t a policy; it’s a tantrum. Can the Democrats find real solutions to our problems? If Zohran Mamdani’s platform is an indication, the Democrats’ future could be pretty bleak.