Published on: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 22:31:41 GMT
Original Story: From ‘Terrible People’ to ‘Smart People’: The Trump-Led Right Rethinks Iran – The New York Times

Iran: From ‘Terrible People’ to ‘Smart’ Allies?

Alright, settle in, folks. Pour yourself something strong, because if you thought you had a handle on who’s who in the global geopolitical sandbox, you’re about to get whiplash. Just when you’d finally memorized the lineup of designated baddies, the Trump-led right, bless their consistent little hearts, has decided to hit the reset button on one of their all-time greatest hits: Iran. Apparently, the ayatollahs and their whole oppressive regime, once universally condemned by the MAGA faithful as “terrible people” leading a “terrorist state,” have suddenly undergone a miraculous intellectual glow-up. They’re not terrible anymore, you see. They’re… smart. Peak 2024, right?

The Grand Rebrand: Cognitive Dissonance as a Feature, Not a Bug

Honestly, you could set your watch by this kind of rhetorical gymnastics. One minute, a nation is a pariah, a rogue entity, the very embodiment of evil standing athwart American exceptionalism. The next? Poof! With a little political fairy dust and a fresh strategic imperative, they’re suddenly a cunning adversary, perhaps even a potential dance partner in some grand, convoluted geopolitical tango. It’s less a foreign policy shift and more a masterclass in rebranding. We’re not talking about a subtle nuance adjustment here; we’re talking about a full-on, 180-degree ideological U-turn so sharp it ought to come with a warning label for intellectual injuries.

The New York Times piece, which, let’s be honest, probably gave several State Department lifers a mild aneurysm, outlines how figures in Trump’s orbit are now openly musing about a more pragmatic, even cooperative, approach to Tehran. Why? Because, apparently, Iran’s regional maneuvering, once proof of their inherent wickedness, is now being re-evaluated as evidence of their “smartness”. The kind of smartness that, you know, could be useful. Against, say, China or Russia. Because nothing says “stable foreign policy” like cozying up to yesterday’s boogeyman to spite today’s bigger boogeyman, right?

Remembering the “Terrible” Days: A Quick Memory Jog

Let’s rewind the tape a bit, shall we? Because some of us still remember a time before this sudden epiphany. A time when Donald J. Trump, the very architect of this emerging strategic flexibility, was, shall we say, a tad less charitable towards Iran. During his 2016 campaign and subsequent presidency, “terrible” barely scratched the surface of his descriptors. He repeatedly lambasted the Obama-era nuclear deal (JCPOA) as the “worst deal ever”, a catastrophic capitulation that enriched a murderous regime. He famously pulled the United States out of that agreement in 2018, declaring it a disaster, a charade, and a testament to American weakness. He spoke of Iran as a primary sponsor of terrorism, a threat to global stability, and minced no words about the alleged villainy of its leadership.

Seriously, go back and read the transcripts. It was fire and brimstone. No mention of their “smart” geopolitical chess moves then, just a litany of their alleged sins. The revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization, their ballistic missile program an unmitigated menace, and their regional proxies were uniformly painted as agents of chaos. The idea that anyone from his inner circle would then pivot to discussing Iran’s “sophistication” or strategic value against other powers would have been, well, anathema. It’s almost as if principles are just suggestions, easily overridden by whatever serves the immediate political narrative.

Why the Sudden IQ Boost for Tehran?

So, what gives? Did the Iranian leadership suddenly enroll in an online course at Harvard’s Kennedy School? Or did someone just realize that in the grand game of thrones, sometimes you need to make uncomfortable alliances to gain an advantage? The cynical elder millennial in me leans heavily towards the latter. This isn’t about a genuine reassessment of Iran’s internal politics or human rights record – those are still, presumably, “terrible.” This is about perceived utility.

• The China/Russia Angle: The idea floating around is that Iran, being a regional power with its own complicated relationship with both Beijing and Moscow, could be leveraged. If the U.S. under a future Trump administration wants to play a more isolationist game while simultaneously pushing back against emerging rivals, then perhaps cultivating Iran as a quasi-partner to disrupt, rather than contain, might seem “smart.” It’s the old “enemy of my enemy is my potential tactical acquaintance for a limited engagement” playbook.
• Domestic Political Points: Let’s be real, a big part of this is always about differentiating from the current administration. Biden’s approach to Iran, while not exactly warm and fuzzy, has been portrayed by the right as weak or ineffective. A Trump pivot, even if it looks like a complete reversal of his own prior policy, can be framed as “bold,” “unconventional,” or “thinking outside the box.” Never mind that “outside the box” often just means “inconsistent and reactive.”
• The Art of the Deal, Redux: For Trump, everything is transactional. Allies are assets, adversaries are negotiating partners. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent deals (or the pursuit thereof). If Iran can offer a better “deal” (whatever that might look like – oil, regional stability, a shiny new tower in Tehran with his name on it), then suddenly, they’re not so terrible after all. Just smart negotiators.

The Art of the Policy Flip: A Trumpian Masterpiece

This isn’t an isolated incident, mind you. Trump’s political career has been a veritable symphony of policy reversals, rhetorical contortions, and conveniently forgotten statements. Remember when he was going to label China a currency manipulator on Day One? Or when he swore off foreign entanglements? The man embodies political fluidity. It’s a feature, not a bug, of his brand. He can pivot on a dime, because for his base, the consistency isn’t in the policy itself, but in the perceived strength and contrarianism of the leader. If Trump says Iran is smart today, then by golly, Iran is smart today, regardless of what he tweeted or bellowed on a rally stage five years ago.

The implication here is profound: a future Trump administration might jettison traditional alliances and understandings faster than you can say “Abraham Accords.” If Iran, a nation whose nuclear ambitions and human rights record have been a bipartisan concern for decades, can be rebranded overnight from “terrible” to “smart” for strategic convenience, what other sacred cows are up for slaughter? What other long-held assumptions about global order are about to be thrown into the intellectual blender?

The Cost of Cognitive Dissonance in Geopolitics

Beyond the immediate snark, there’s a serious underlying issue here: the complete erosion of consistent foreign policy and the very notion of objective truth in international relations. When adversaries can be demonized one day and praised the next based purely on political expediency, it sends a chaotic signal to allies and rivals alike. It makes long-term planning impossible, undermines diplomatic credibility, and turns global statecraft into a perpetual reality TV show where the script is written on the fly.

It also forces everyone else to contort themselves into knots trying to keep up. Remember all those pundits and politicians who echoed Trump’s fiery rhetoric against Iran? What are they supposed to do now? Quietly delete their old tweets? Pretend they always knew Iran was “smart” deep down? It’s a loyalty test, alright, but one where the answers change constantly, and the only correct response is absolute fealty to the latest pronouncement.