Tulsi Gabbard: Opportunism vs hypocrisy (until June 21)

Late Saturday, The Dissident posted on Substack a piece calling Trump's Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard a hypocrite for supporting Israel's attack on Iran, when she called out ideas for that during Trump 1.0 (and would have during Biden's time had he mentioned such an idea).

With an extended comment, I said, in essence, it was opportunism, not hypocrisy. Here's why, in an edited version of that.

(Update, June 21: Per new Tweets by her, and a new piece linking them by The Dissident, she's now a hypocrite.) 

The reality is that Tulsi Gabbard has always been a Hindutva-fascist Islamophobe. I knew that a full decade ago. Everything about her and US foreign policy has to start there. 

And, she's been willing to get in bed with the Christian Religious Right on this. I mean, LONG ago, she spoke at one of John Hagee's events — way back in 2015! Just as the Christian Religious Right and Zionist Jews make strange bedfellows, but do so willingly, a Hindutva, the Hindu Religious Right, will jump in bed with the Christian Religious Right, and also Zionist Jews, as needed. (India has had a lot of migrant laborers go to Israel as it has kicked out more and more Palestinians, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has encouraged that. (Per that Hagee link, she was already taking AIPAC money as long ago as 2019.)

She's also NEVER been a "peace candidate," having vote for more nukes while in Congress, among other things. (Reason mag also called her out at that time.) 

I don't think it's as much her opposing the neocons in the past, and now buying in, as it is that Israel, not direct US weaponry let alone troops, is doing the heavy lifting right now (though we're giving Israel an assist). And since Biden signed off while Israel first wrecked Gaza, then Syria, there's far less chance Bibi drags the US into having to actually do something now, than was the case under Trump 1.0. And, that's where we're at today, as I see it. There's very little chance Trump gets the US directly involved.

Per her 2019-2020 tweets, we ARE out of Syria now, because of Israel. We're not out of Iraq, though — surprised Trump hasn't acted on that, but maybe he will at some point. Lebanon's been weakened, and because of that, so has Iran.

Now, by his lies on negotiations, he already has highly gotten us indirectly involved. But, especially after the first Israeli attack, Iran is going to focus on it, in part because it can't spread itself thin.

So, again, the 2025 situation isn't the same as 2019. If it doesn't involve a high US price, I think all along that she wouldn't have had a problem with regime change in Iran.

Again, though, the Hindutva is going to be the bottom line, and India and Modi are fairly down on Iran right now, from what I've seen from informed Indians on Shitter. That said, Bibi and Modi have talked since the Israeli attack. Modi wants early peace, but probably because he's afraid of spillover to the east with high India-Pakistan tension right now. 

In short, this is a mix of opportunism and following the boss' orders, as I see it. Not so much hypocrisy.

Is it also alarming, as The Dissident says early on? Yes, but many things can be alarming but not hypocritical, like Pete Hegseth's and Marco Rubio's backing Trump on Iran.

Now, if Trump sends a bunch more weapons to Ukraine and she doesn't push back, maybe call her a hypocrite, especially if that so increases the tension with Russia that other things could happen. But, that hasn't happened. (Yet.)

Two additional things.

One is more on "following the boss' orders." Trump fires a lot of people. (Even though Elmo had to leave within 130 days lest he be considered a full-time government employee, still, essentially, Trump fired him.) Few in Trump's circle quit on their own. In addition, Gabbard has burned many former bridges.

Related? At least for public consumption, Trump 2.0 HAD re-entered the Obama-era nuclear protocol.

The real problem, as The Dissident himself knows, is that Trump 2.0 has become far more of a weathervane than his first administration, saying one thing one day, then another the next. He's also more of a weathervane hypocrite, saying one thing publicly and another privately.

Second is that Gabbard is DNI, not National Security Advisor. Her office is relatively peripheral to all of this, except for the matter of whether it thinks Israel actually can pull off Iranian regime change or not — and whether that will be better or worse.

HERE, if she's not giving Trump good advice, then she is a hypocrite. But, nobody inside DNI is leaking about this right now.

OR, if Trump is right beyond his half-lie about saying that the US is not currently involved, but that it could get involved, and Gabbard says nothing, she's a hypocrite. (That said, Trump is full-wrong in his normal cluelessness that the Israeli attacks will speed up Iran making a decision. They think he lied, and Steve Witkoff is by now regarded around the Middle East as a liar, ball-less or both.)

Don't get me wrong — today, just as nearly a decade ago, it's both fun and necessary to bag on Tulsi Gabbard. But, the reason why on that needs to be correctly understood.

Beyond that, contra The Dissident, Gabbard sent a veiled shot across Trump's bow on June 10, per Politco. And, I watched the video; it arguably could refer to Russia-Ukraine and our backstopping the attack on the airplane portion of Russia's nuclear forces, but almost certainly is primarily about Iran and Israel.