A new U.S.–Iran peace deal has just been reached

 BREAKING NEWS!

A new U.S.–Iran peace deal has just been reached,  entirely separate from the original 2015 nuclear accord

Democrats and GCRMR say Noooo!

President Donald Trump and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that a "final, agreed-upon text" is officially in place. The formal signing ceremony is scheduled to take place in Switzerland.

Democrats  and thr Global Circular Reporting Mafia Ring led by the AntiChristian, Antisemitic, AntiUSA, AntiTrump NYT and NOTUS Previously funded by Samantha Power's USAID and Soros 

Say:  "NOOOOO"

They are rooting for Iran.  They want  the war to continue so they can continue fundraising using the slogan "Stop Endless Wars"

Same old 

The same people who assert President has failed  as Commander in Chief

Are the same ones who support the Democrats' Ukraine endless war.

Who supported kicking the Iran Can down the road.

Are the same ones who called him a dictator

These are the same people that wrapped themselves with the foreign flag du jour

12 months ago - Ukrainian flags
11 months ago - Palestinian flags
8 months ago - Mexican flags
3 month ago - Venezuelan flags
2 months ago: The  Iranian flags and rooting for Iran

Without Firing A Single Shot, Europe Has Fallen. So have NYC, WA, MN,TX, MI & AK While Europe has fallen, America will soon follow, unless president Trump is able to dismantle the Ummah Industrial Complex and the Global Circular Reporting Mafia Ring.

The Ummah Industrial Complex is administered by leading US & European universities

New York Times headlines covering the Iran War casting doubts on the Trump administration and implying rooting for an Iran win.

Exhibit A

Several New York Times headlines and articles from the 2026 Iran war (February–June 2026) framed the Trump administration’s policy critically, emphasizing internal doubts, inconsistency, limited success, and Iranian resilience or leverage.—questioning the wisdom and coherence of U.S. actions while giving space to narratives of Iranian strength or U.S. difficulties.


Here are prominent examples drawn from NYT coverage during the conflict (U.S./Israeli strikes beginning Feb. 28, 2026, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iranian retaliation, Strait of Hormuz blockade, ceasefires, and eventual deal talks):
“How Trump Took the U.S. to War With Iran” (April 7, 2026)

The piece presents the decision as a “fateful” one made in Situation Room meetings where Trump weighed his “instincts against the deep concerns of his vice president and a pessimistic intelligence assessment.” It highlights Netanyahu’s influence and portrays the path to war as driven more by personal/political dynamics than clear strategic consensus.

“Bombs, Bargains and Bluster: Trump’s Iran Approach Sows Confusion” (May 28, 2026)
Headline and lede directly question policy coherence: “President Trump’s pendulum swings on Iran have often seemed driven by mood and moment rather than any discernible strategy.” It describes veering between strikes, diplomacy, and “far-fetched ideas,” bewildering allies, and notes repeated near-breakthroughs that fell apart. This is one of the clearest examples of casting doubt on strategic consistency.

“Trump Finds High-Wire Iran Negotiations ‘Very Boring’” (June 1, 2026)
Frames the high-stakes talks dismissively through Trump’s own words (he told CNBC he “couldn’t care less” if they broke down and found them “very boring”). The “high-wire” phrasing underscores risk and instability in the U.S. approach.

Opinion/Video: “Why Iran Believes It Has the Upper Hand” (April 3, 2026, Ezra Klein Show with Suzanne Maloney)
Explores how Iran views the war and why “the United States is losing.” It discusses Iranian regime survival, leverage via the Strait of Hormuz, and the limits of U.S. objectives. Pieces like this that center Iranian perceptions of advantage can read as amplifying narratives of Iranian resilience or U.S. setbacks.

Other related pieces around the same period referenced “stalemate,” Trump “hitting his limits,” or confusion in approach, often contrasting early optimistic declarations with prolonged friction, costs (oil prices, regional fallout), and negotiation difficulties.


These headlines and framings appeared most prominently in April–May 2026, during active fighting and stalled talks. Later June coverage included more straightforward reporting on Trump’s cease-fire announcements and deal progress (e.g., live updates on agreements to end fighting and reopen the Strait).

On “rooting for an Iran win”: while The NYT did not explicitly cheer an Iranian victory, by focusing on U.S. policy confusion, internal divisions, costs, and Iranian ability to impose pain (Hormuz leverage, survival after leadership losses, prolonging conflict), some coverage effectively highlighted Iranian strengths and questioned whether U.S./Trump objectives (decisive pressure, quick favorable deal, clear victory) were being met. Critics of the paper (including Trump himself) have called this out as downplaying U.S. achievements—like the initial strikes and regime decapitation—and amplifying difficulties to undermine the administration.

The NYT and similar outlets have long histories of skeptical or critical coverage of Trump foreign policy, which supporters view as institutional bias and the paper defends as rigorous scrutiny/accountability. During this war, Tmp publicly clashed with NYT reporting on issues like strike damage assessments and intelligence..

Bottom line: Yes, multiple NYT pieces during the 2026 Iran war cast explicit or implicit doubt on the coherence,. consistency, and ultimate effectiveness of Trump administration policy. Some amplified Iranian perspectivs or resilience in ways that can reasonably be read as relatively more favorable to Iran’s position than outright U.S. success
This fits a broader pattern in legacy media coverage of Trump-era Middle East policy. 

Democrats' Trump Endless War

Exhibit  B

Democrats, particularly House leadership and progressives—have characterized the 2026 Iran war as Trump's "endless war" or a quagmire, using that framing in messaging to criticize the administration, push War Powers resolutions, and attack Republicans politically. This rhetoric has appeared in press releases, floor speeches, interviews, and ads targeting GOP lawmakers.

Democratic Rhetoric on the War
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries repeatedly used "endless war" language in early 2026:
Called it a "catastrophic endless war" and "another endless war in the Middle East" that would end in failure, contrasting it with Trump's campaign promises to avoid such conflicts.
Framed it as a "war of choice" lacking clear justification or imminent threat evidence, a distraction from domestic costs of living, and a risk of another failed regime-change effort (citing Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).
Used this in statements around War Powers resolution debates, arguing Congress must reassert authority to prevent entanglement and waste of lives/treasure.


Other Democrats echoed similar themes:
Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) called it a "quagmire" in congressional hearings, clashing with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (who called Democratic criticism "reckless" and "defeatist" words as the "biggest adversary").
Multiple War Powers resolutions were advanced to limit or end U.S. involvement without explicit congressional authorization. House votes (e.g., one passing 215-208 with a few Republicans joining) were framed as rebukes of an "illegal and costly war."
Emphasis on economic fallout (oil/gas prices from Hormuz issues), American lives lost, and shifting or unclear objectives.

The war was described in various sources as broadly unpopular, with costs to U.S. forces, bases, and the economy. Democrats positioned themselves as the party restraining reckless escalation and prioritizing American taxpayers/troops over prolonged conflict.

Fundraising Angle
Democrats and aligned groups have used the war in political ads and communications attacking Republicans who supported it (e.g., "hammering vulnerable Republicans" per NYT reporting). Some fundraising appeals from Democratic figures or PACs likely tie into broader anti-Trump/GOP messaging around "endless wars," costs, and failure to deliver on domestic promises.




Summary: Democrats did characterize it as an endless/quagmire war tied to Trump and used that for political attacks and messaging (which supports fundraising against Republicans).