New York Times Columnist Worries That America Winning A War Will Help Trump

A new level of Trump Derangement Syndrome has been reached, and it’s a terrible look. In a televised interview that quickly drew national attention, Thomas L. Friedman acknowledged what he described as a personal “moral dilemma” over the ongoing U.S.-Israel military campaign targeting Iran’s Islamic regime, expressing support for the regime’s defeat while opposing any political benefit accruing to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or President Donald Trump.

You read that right. The New York Times columnist is torn on America winning a war against the leading state sponsor of terrorism across the globe because he doesn’t want Donald Trump to get credit.

Appearing on CNN’s Smerconish on April 11, Friedman said he believes the Iranian regime should be defeated, calling it “a terrible regime for its people and the region.” He added that the Middle East would be better served by a government “focused on enabling its people to realize their full potential, and integrating peacefully with other countries, and stop occupying Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.”

But Friedman framed his position as conflicted, drawing a distinction between strategic outcomes abroad and political consequences at home and in Israel.

“The problem is,” Friedman continued, “I really don’t want to see Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump politically strengthened by this war because they are two awful human beings. They are both engaged in anti-democratic projects in their own countries. They’re both alleged crooks. They are terrible, terrible people doing terrible things to America’s standing in the world and Israel’s standing in the world.”

He concluded: “And so I really find myself torn. I want to see Iran militarily defeated, but I do not want to see these two terrible people strengthened.”

The remarks came as U.S. and Israeli forces continue coordinated strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, including components tied to its nuclear program and regional proxy networks. Reports in recent days have pointed to significant Iranian setbacks, though Tehran has continued to signal potential retaliation, including threats tied to the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The segment circulated widely online after being highlighted by media figures, prompting immediate reaction from policymakers and foreign policy analysts. Critics argued that Friedman’s comments suggested a willingness to subordinate strategic objectives—such as weakening a hostile regime—to domestic political considerations.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee issued a sharp response on X, writing: “What kind of sick hate must Tom Friedman have that he roots for the USA to lose to a terrorist regime that has killed thousands of Americans? I didn’t vote for Obama, but I praised him for taking out Bin Laden.”

Others framed Friedman’s comments less as contradiction than as candor. Mark Dubowitz, head of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote: “Good for Tom Friedman for being honest. He hates Trump and Bibi so much that he doesn’t want them to win the war against the regime in Iran.”

The exchange reflects a broader derangement on the left in regards to American foreign policy. They are becoming more and more incapable of rooting for America because it could hurt their obsessions in domestic politics. Friedman has previously criticized elements of the Trump-Netanyahu approach to Iran, arguing in past opinion columns that the strategy risked underestimating the regime’s resilience.

As of the time of this publication, neither CNN nor The New York Times had not issued a formal response to the controversy. The interview, however, has served as a reminder that liberals and Democrats have expressly stated that they will put party over country, at least as long as Donald Trump remains president.

[Read More: Foreign Billionaires Attacking American Technological Advantage]