While President Trump has yet to officially endorse a candidate for the 2028 Republican nomination, Senator J.D. Vance recently received a political gift far more potent than any formal blessing: a furious, coordinated rebuke from the establishment’s most reliable voices, Bret Stephens and Marc Thiessen, all within the same month.
First up was The New York Times' Bret Stephens, a man who once proudly dubbed himself a "Biden conservative" and cast his 2024 vote for Kamala Harris. Last week, Stephens confidently declared Vance “by far the worst person ever to hold the office.” For decades, this self-proclaimed “conservative” has consistently rooted against Republicans in major elections, making his venomous denunciation of Vance less an insult and more a badge of honor. As the saying goes, if Bret “Bed Bug” Stephens is against you, you’re likely doing something right for America.
Perhaps slightly more concerning, given his inexplicable private consultations with President Trump on foreign affairs, was the broadside from The Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen. This week, Thiessen continued what appears to be a very obviously coordinated attack against Vance, orchestrated by a slimy mix of neoconservatives, perpetually lazy Republicans, and Israel Firsters—a contingent that always seems to put globalist agendas ahead of American interests.
Thiessen's latest column pointedly blames failures in the increasingly unpopular Iran war, even among Republicans, not on the commander-in-chief’s dubious decisions, but squarely on Vance. According to Thiessen, Vance, whose primary responsibility in the conflict has been to negotiate an end to hostilities with Iran’s leadership, is somehow responsible for its deteriorating status. Such blame shifting speaks volumes about the desperation of those pushing for endless conflict.
But the true gem of Thiessen’s piece was his breathtaking definition of what a “real victory” in Iran would look like—a victory, mind you, that conveniently requires no negotiation, just brute force. He wrote that the war’s objectives include: “eliminate remaining [Iranian] leadership figures; further entomb Iran’s nuclear sites; take out Iran’s remaining ballistic missile sites; destroy the economic and energy infrastructure that provides the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with a financial lifeline, as well as key highways, railroads, airports and seaports by which the regime gets financial assistance from bordering countries; and demolish Iran’s remaining defense industrial base so it cannot rebuild its destroyed capabilities.” Then, with an apparent straight face, Thiessen added, “That’s it.”
Oh, is that all?! A complete decimation of a global energy supplier’s entire transportation infrastructure and economy? And somehow, we are supposed to believe “that’s it”? But wait, there’s more! Thiessen then went on to propose that the U.S. would simply need to commit to maintaining American troops just off Iran’s coast in perpetuity and “provide covert support” to Iranian rebels, in the ever-optimistic hope that they might finally rise up against their own government. Funny how that strategy has always delivered such spectacular results.
“Once these targets have been struck,” Thiessen explained, “the president should announce an end to major combat, keep the blockade in place, open the Strait of Hormuz and then provide covert support to the Iranian people to help them undermine and eventually bring down the regime. …”
Furthermore, nearly half a year into this war, Thiessen incredibly claimed all of this would only take a “few weeks.” Well, why didn’t you say so?! Clearly, the brilliance of these foreign policy experts knows no bounds when it comes to advocating for endless conflict on someone else's dime and American lives.
Marc, hold our hands as we remind you: President Trump has already announced an end to major combat and claimed the Hormuz Strait is opening. Before, of course, saying the opposite. Multiple times. The undeniable reality is that even as Thiessen credits the president for “decimating its ballistic missile capability” and “annihilating its conventional military forces,” Iran has stubbornly managed to continue attacking U.S. targets and tragically killing Americans. And whatever claims are made about the Strait being “open,” ship crews remain terrified of passing through it. It’s not because of Jaws, it’s because the situation remains volatile and dangerous under this neocon vision of “victory.”
Bret Stephens and Marc Thiessen are quintessential Israel First neoconservatives, whose primary allegiance lies with foreign entanglements and an insatiable preference for war. The public record shows J.D. Vance is not in sync with this war-hungry crowd. That’s precisely why they despise him. It's why they are actively blaming him for America's deteriorating standing in this never-ending conflict. Their fervent desire to destroy Vance isn't a sign of his weakness, but a clear validation of his America First principles and his growing strength as a leader committed to putting American interests, not globalist agendas, first. Such attacks only solidify Vance's appeal to a Republican base tired of the establishment's endless wars and betrayals.
