Senator Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) latest CNN appearance unleashed a predictable tirade against President Trump’s decisive Iran strikes. On “State of the Union,” the California Democrat labeled the military action unconstitutional, whining about a lack of congressional approval. His critique, dripping with partisan flair, conveniently sidesteps the urgency of national security.
Schiff decried Trump’s strikes on Iranian facilities, which intelligence confirmed were advancing uranium enrichment. The attack obliterated those sites, delivering a blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In one breath, Schiff admits the setback to Tehran’s program, yet in the next, he’s clutching pearls over procedural niceties.
Intelligence reviewed by Schiff showed Iran hadn’t yet committed to building a nuclear bomb. “Iran had not decided to build a bomb,” he conceded, as if that justifies inaction against a rogue regime. Waiting for a dictator’s permission slip isn’t leadership—it’s naivety.
Schiff’s constitutional gripes center on Trump bypassing Congress for the strikes. “This was not constitutional,” he huffed, demanding the administration grovel for approval first. Funny how progressive darlings never mind executive overreach when it suits their agenda.
The strikes, Schiff admitted, disrupted Iran’s nuclear progress—a “positive,” in his own words. Yet he’s quick to pivot, warning Iran might now “sprint” for a bomb. So, which is it: a setback or a catastrophe? Make up your mind, Senator.
Iran, Schiff rightly noted, is a “nefarious regime” and the world’s top state sponsor of terror. “Should have never been pursuing a nuclear program,” he said, stating the obvious. But criticizing Trump’s action while agreeing with the problem reeks of political posturing.
Schiff speculated Iran might retaliate, perhaps expelling nuclear inspectors. “We simply don’t know what is going to occur now,” he fretted. Uncertainty is war’s shadow, but paralysis in the face of evil isn’t a strategy.
He also warned Iran could abandon the nonproliferation treaty. That’s a scary thought, but Tehran’s track record of cheating on agreements suggests they’re halfway out the door already. Trump’s strikes at least hit them where it hurts.
Schiff’s crystal ball sees Iran racing for a bomb post-strike. “It is now going to engage in a sprint for the bomb,” he predicted. If true, that’s a reason to act decisively, not dither with congressional debates.
Schiff took a swipe at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, accusing him of “arrogance” during a press conference. “Arrogance is a deadly commodity,” he sneered, as if confidence in protecting America is a sin. Critics like Schiff mistake strength for hubris when it’s not their guy in charge.
The senator’s fixation on congressional approval ignores the reality of rapid-response threats. Iran’s uranium enrichment isn’t a PowerPoint presentation; it’s a ticking clock. Trump acted to neutralize a clear danger, not to stroke egos on Capitol Hill.
Schiff’s own words betray his conflicted stance. “The destruction of these facilities is a positive,” he admitted, before pivoting to doom-and-gloom hypotheticals. It’s almost as if he wants credit for acknowledging reality while still pandering to the anti-Trump crowd.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Schiff correctly noted, are a global menace. Yet his solution seems to be endless hand-wringing and bureaucratic red tape. Leadership demands tough calls, not just eloquent complaints.
The strikes’ success in demolishing Iran’s facilities can’t be glossed over. Schiff’s grudging admission of their impact undercuts his broader critique. If setting back a terror state’s nuclear program isn’t worth decisive action, what is?
Schiff’s CNN sermon boils down to this: Trump’s right to hit Iran, but wrong to do it without permission. It’s a classic Washington dodge—agree with the goal, nitpick the process. America deserves leaders who prioritize results over rulebooks when the stakes are this high.
