New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman appeared on CNN this past Saturday to offer a masterclass in the paralyzing pathology of the modern Left: he is so consumed by his visceral hatred for Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu that he is “torn” over whether he actually wants to see a genocidal, terror-sponsoring regime in Iran defeated.
“I really want to see Iran defeated militarily,” Friedman admitted, acknowledging that the regime is “terrible” for its people and the region. But the “enlightened” foreign policy dean immediately hit a wall of his own making. “The problem is I really don’t want to see Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump politically strengthened by this war because they are two awful human beings.”
For Friedman, the prospect of two democratically elected leaders—whom he smeared as “alleged crooks” and “terrible, terrible people”—achieving a geopolitical victory is apparently a fate worse than the continued survival of the Ayatollahs.
Don’t want Iran to lose if it means Trump wins. @TomFriedman of @NYTimes really wants “to see Iran defeated militarily because this regime is a terrible regime for its people and the region,” but on CNN’s @Smerconish he fretted “the problem is I really don’t want to see Bibi… pic.twitter.com/rgPngGXkGc
— Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) April 11, 2026
The Left would rather watch the world burn than allow their political opponents to claim a win. Friedman’s obsession with Netanyahu isn’t a new development; it’s a long-documented fixation that frequently veers into the deranged.
Friedman has been railing against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for years; he has denounced the concept of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”), calling Israeli settlements a “cancer for the Jewish people.”
After President Trump announced that he was going to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Friedman slammed the decision, saying the United States should have demanded concessions from Netanyahu before committing to the move. In 2023, as a historic normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia loomed, Friedman didn’t see an opportunity for Middle East stability. Instead, he wrote a column encouraging the Saudis to snub the deal because he deemed Netanyahu’s right-wing government “not normal.”
Friedman’s rhetoric has often crossed the line from policy critique into personal vilification. As the Algemeiner pointed out, he has previously likened Netanyahu to a “dog” and an “alcoholic,” echoing tropes that are deeply offensive in the Middle Eastern context. He famously justified the Obama administration’s condescension toward Israel by stating, “friends don’t let friends drive drunk,” even while that same administration was busy sending billions in sanctions relief to Tehran.
Friedman represents a pundit class that views the world through a narrow straw of personal grievance. To him, the “physics” of Middle East peace are a game of tic-tac-toe that only he can solve, yet his solution is always the same: marginalize the conservative leaders he despises, even if it means leaving a vacuum for real monsters to fill.
Friedman’s loathing for Trump and Netanyahu has become his primary North Star, overriding even the desire to see a murderous regime in Iran brought to its knees. If a victory for the West means a victory for his political enemies, Friedman would apparently rather the West didn’t win at all.
.png)
.png)
