A group dedicated to helping “LGBTQ+ migrants” in Boston is flailing after conservative media drew attention to its program distributing “wellness” grants to migrants, which the group claimed was taxpayer funded. After The Daily Signal reached out for comment, the group deleted its press release claiming to combat “disinformation,” and announced a pause in the program. The City of Boston, for its part, confirmed that it awarded a grant to the group, but explicitly stated that no taxpayer funds may be used for the program. “OUTnewcomers, a grassroots LGBTQ+ migrant justice organization based in Greater Boston, announces the temporary pause of its wellness initiative, Project Belonging Matters,” the group posted in a press release after The Daily Signal reached out for comment Thursday. OUTnewcomers claimed that the organization and its founder, Sal Khan, “received multiple death threats and threats of being reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement following the project’s public launch.” The group does not suggest it checks documentation to ensure that migrants are legal when dispersing services. The LGBTQ+ Migrants’ ‘Wellness’ Program The organization launched the program on Tuesday with posts on Facebook and Instagram. “Get $250-$500 for your well-being,” a poster states, advertising “Wellness Support for LGBTQ+ Migrants in Boston.” The poster states four different potential uses for the funding: “Yoga & Meditation,” “Creative Healing,” “Peer Support,” and “Gym Memberships.” The poster says the program will give priority to “low-income, trans & isolated LGBTQ+ migrants in Boston,” with the proviso that “all funds must be used within the City of Boston.” Screenshot Combating ‘Disinformation’ After Mass Daily News and the Daily Mail reported on the program, OUTnewcomers published a press release countering what it called “disinformation” that “endangers LGBTQ+ migrants” in Boston. The organization claimed the news outlets “did not follow ethical reporting standards,” but only suggested that the outlets wrongfully reported the $250-$500 payments. “Our City of Boston-funded program is modest and need based,” the organization wrote. “It provides small vouchers of $50 or less to eligible LGBTQ+ migrants living in Boston to access limited wellness supports such as haircuts, acupuncture, or massage. The program is also intended to support local Boston businesses that welcome LGBTQ+ and migrant clients and workers.” (emphasis original) The press release stated that the “hate-driven disinformation” “directly endangers” Khan and “puts vulnerable community members at greater risk.” After @MassDailyNews and @DailyMail reported on the program, OUTnewcomers released this press release. The group claimed it was "rejecting disinformation" and suggested that the $250-$500 number is inaccurate. ?2/8 pic.twitter.com/6rwSLewEHY— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) April 16, 2026 The Daily Signal reached out to the organization, seeking to clarify the size of the grants available and to verify whether the City of Boston funded them. OUTnewcomers declined to comment to The Daily Signal and asked that The Daily Signal never contact the organization again. Pausing the Program After The Daily Signal reached out, OUTnewcomers removed the press release from its website and replaced it with the release announcing the pause. “While we remain deeply committed to this work, the safety of our community must come first,” Khan, the organization’s founder, said in a statement on the pause. “We are taking this pause to assess risks and ensure that we can continue our mission in a way that protects those we serve.” Boston’s Response A spokesperson for the City of Boston confirmed that Beantown taxes had funded OUTnewcomers, but noted that none of the grant money may be allocated to the program in question. “No funds have been distributed or directed for those purposes,” the spokesperson told The Daily Signal in a statement Thursday. “This organization received a $7,500 grant through a city program to support mental health services. Those funds were not designated for and may not be used for the voucher program referenced.” The city’s budget for fiscal year 2026 allocated the funds, but the grant was cut from the fiscal year 2027 budget. The post Boston LGBTQ Activist Group Flailing After Conservative News Reports on ‘Wellness’ Grants to Migrants, Funding Yoga, Haircuts appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Democrats are betting higher gas prices will do what they cannot: weaken President Donald Trump’s advantage on national security. Their hope is that voters will fixate on the cost of a fill-up and forget why energy markets reacted to the Iran conflict in the first place. It is the same desperate strategy Americans have seen before. When they cannot win the bigger argument on national security, they retreat to the issue of costs and pray that short-term frustration will outweigh the far more serious stakes of American security and credibility.  The Democrat strategy is not subtle.?Quinnipiac found that 65% of voters blame Trump at least somewhat for the recent rise in gas prices due to the Iran war, and Democrats think they have found their midterm jackpot issue.?They hope if they?can keep the conversation centered on pain at the pump, voters will forget their failures on the border, inflation, crime, and foreign policy.  Former Vice President Kamala Harris?is already blaming Trump for pain at the pump, calling it the “direct result” of his Iran policy.   They are betting that temporary frustration will?outweigh the?larger truth Americans see: The world is dangerous, our enemies exploit weakness, and real leadership sometimes requires force even when markets react in the short term. Iran threatens global shipping lanes and destabilizes the world.?  However, voters are not convinced that weakness is strength or that retreat is leadership.   We have seen this before. After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, oil prices and gasoline costs rose as the Persian Gulf crisis?shook?global energy markets. Americans felt the pain, but history did not judge that moment by gas prices alone. It judged whether the United States had the strength to confront aggression at a critical moment. America led a coalition, drove Saddam out of Kuwait, and restored deterrence in the Gulf. President George H. W. Bush’s approval surged during and immediately after the Gulf War, rising from 64% before the war to 89% after victory.?  That history matters now because it exposes the Democrats’ biggest strategic flaw: they confuse costs with failure.?National security decisions can carry economic consequences, but the real question is whether those costs are helping restore?deterrence, protect global order, and make hostile regimes think twice before testing American resolve. Democrats refuse this debate because it exposes their weakness. Their playbook is to frame strength as escalation, deterrence as recklessness, and American power as? a problem rather than a solution.?  Kamala Harris’ attack reveals how poorly the Democrats are misreading the electorate.?They assume higher gas prices will immediately trigger voter backlash without asking what caused the increase, what alternatives exist, and what weakness costs the country. Gallup polled Americans in the war’s opening phase, from March 2-18, and found only 2% named gas prices as the nation’s top problem.?  Recent Fox polling reveals that voter concern about gas prices is high, but concern about inflation is even higher.?  Voters are not looking at the pump in isolation. They are?looking at energy costs against the questions of affordability, deterrence, and American strength.?  Voters cannot miss the hypocrisy. Democrats spent four years excusing historic inflation when it suited their politics. They backed policies that weakened confidence in American energy, from killing Keystone XL to pausing new federal oil and gas leases, ignored warnings about instability abroad, and dismissed deterrence?as exaggerated concerns.   Now, as the Iran war has temporarily pushed up gas prices, they want to pose as defenders of working families. They offer no real alternatives; they only hope short-term pain will erase the memory of their own failures. Voters are smarter than that.?  The truth is Democrats want a gas-price panic because they cannot beat Trump on security. While the real debate is about Iran, deterrence, and American resolve, they would rather turn it into a referendum on a gas receipt than on leadership. But Americans know temporary pain is not the same as strategic failure. A party that confuses the two proves only one thing: it never understood strength in the first place.?  ?  The post Democrats Want a Gas Price Panic Because They Cannot Beat Trump on Strength?  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Ten House Republicans and one independent voted with Democrats on Thursday to allow more than 350,000 Haitian immigrants stay in the United States for another three years. In a 224-204 vote, the House passed a bill that would require the Homeland Security secretary to designate Haiti for temporary protected status (TPS). Haitians have had the designation in the United States since 2010, but the Trump administration has tried to terminate TPS, only to be blocked by federal courts. The result of today’s vote was made possible by Republicans who broke with GOP leadership and voted yes on the measure. “Who needs Democrats whenever you have a Republican tool vote for amnesty?” Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal just after the vote. “The House just voted to codify, effectively, President Biden’s open-border policies for the Haitians,” he continued. .@DailySignal: "Members of the House Freedom Caucus are urging colleagues to oppose extending Temporary Protected Status for Haitian migrants ahead of a final House vote Thursday, citing concerns about public safety.'Temporary should mean temporary, and it is long past time…— Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) April 16, 2026 On Wednesday, six Republicans voted with Democrats to bring the measure to the floor. Even with pushback from the House Freedom Caucus, four more joined in breaking rank. The six Republicans who voted to bring the bill to the floor included Reps. María Elvira Salazar and Carlos Giménez of Florida, Reps. Mike Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. On Thursday, Republican Reps. Mike Turner and Mike Carey of Ohio, Rich McCormick of Georgia, and Mario Díaz-Balart of Florida joined them, along with independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California. When votes were finalized, cheers could be heard outside the House chamber. “Voters elected us to help the president mass-deport illegal aliens who are in our country,” Gill continued, noting that the president specifically called out the Haitian immigrant community as needing reform during the 2024 election. “You don’t turn around and give those very same people we were voted to deport amnesty,” Gill said. “It’s just a great way to just piss in the face of our voters who elected us to actually keep our community safe and secure.” Those on TPS become another expense that taxpayers have to fund, as the majority receive some form of welfare.@chiproytx pic.twitter.com/7IppBss3Tw— Heritage Action (@Heritage_Action) April 16, 2026 Gill noted that 91% of Haitians protected under TPS originally came into the United States illegally, and 69% came during the Biden administration. “It’s unacceptable to see some Republicans breaking ranks to advance this Democrat-led bill, betraying the mandate voters gave them and delivering de facto amnesty,” a Heritage Action spokesperson told The Daily Signal. “Heritage Action will not support amnesty—no exceptions,” the spokesperson continued. “That is what this bill is,” Gill told The Daily Signal. “It is de facto amnesty for people who came into the country illegally.” The post Gill Blasts Republicans Who Voted to Keep Protected Status for Haitians appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. This is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal.   The Left is making quite a deal of attention to what they call the anti-MAGA right, that is former staunch supporters of Donald Trump that have now parted ways with him. And the names that they fixate on, the Left, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who resigned from Congress after a big fight with Donald Trump over the Epstein files and the [Iran] War.  Tucker Carlson, the former, Fox host, news host, and now has become a fierce Trump critic. Megyn Kelly, who had a very successful Fox show herself and then went to NBC and now has a very successful podcast, and she seems to have parted ways with Donald Trump over the same issues as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson.  Then, of course, Joe Rogan has expressed disappointment. Perhaps he is now not in the MAGA fold. Candace Owens has been a virulent critic. Steve Bannon, I don’t know what his status is but there’s a group of people. And then further to the right, of course, there’s the Groypers and Nick Fuentes and all those people. But what was their beef? The first thing that seems to really bother them is the current war. I shouldn’t say the first thing. The first thing that bothered some of them was the summer 2025 attack by the United States for about 25 hours on the nuclear facilities in Iran. It was a one-off. Tucker Carlson said this was unnecessary.  It could lead to World War III. It didn’t. It did retard the progression of nuclear acquisition. Then new information came in that, they had much more ballistic missiles than had been anticipated. And there may have been other areas where they had stored nuclear material. So then that reopened negotiations this year to remove those peacefully.  They didn’t work. And so then the United States began, at the end of February, bombing, and now we’re in the sixth week and they feel that is a forever war and an endless war. But it’s a very funny forever war, isn’t it? I mean, if you look at it, there’s been tragically 13 Americans killed, but it’s not 4,000 or 5,000 as we’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.  7,000 total, perhaps another 20,000 casualties. It’s an air war, almost exclusively an air war except for the rescue of the pilot, and it’s completely asymmetrical. We have destroyed, as people have said, their navy, except for their patrol boats, which I think will be destroyed shortly if they try to interrupt traffic any further in the Strait [of Hormuz].  We’ve destroyed their air force. We’ve destroyed their missile defense. We’ve taken out the first and second tier of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regular army, the theocrats, and even some of the politicians. So their command and control is in disarray, and we have suffered really no major downfall other than politics.  The future of that war is entirely political. I mean, the United States is at liberty to do what it wants, whatever the military feels is necessary to disarm Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to stop its ballistic missile potential. But it’s a political question. Just a question of what’s the effect on the world economy?  What’s the effect on the American economy, and more importantly, how does that affect the midterms and the future of the Trump presidency? But people are conflating those and suggest that militarily it’s a defeat. That’s absurd. What else did this new group of critics, this new old group of critics, get angry about? Trump tweeted that if, Iran had not met these conditions, and were not going to negotiate then he would, destroy their civilization.  It was pretty poorly worded. And they felt that this was beneath him, beneath the United States. They joined the Left in saying that this was out of outrageous. The Left took him literally, not figuratively, but I don’t think anybody believed he meant all of the Iranian people. And we know that because, of course, as I had said earlier, no president has avoided dual-use civilian targets as much as Trump. We didn’t do it in World War II. We hit every civilian target we could from power plants to highways to water facilities to oil production in Germany and Japan.  We did it again in Korea. We did it certainly in Vietnam. We took out all the bridges in the Danube in the 1999 bombing under [Bill] Clinton. And of course we knocked out the power grid of Belgrade, a million and a half people several times. We did the same thing in Libya. We denied we did it, but we hit civilian ships, we hit port facilities, we hit TV stations.  Trump hasn’t done that except for one bridge, so he didn’t really, I mean, his record shows that he doesn’t believe he wants to destroy the civilization. In fact, it’s just the opposite, and I think his critics know that, or he wouldn’t have said, help is on the way. Help is on the way.  The whole subtext of this entire campaign is while regime change is not the primary agenda, he hopes that by weakening and humiliating this theocracy, then the people will rise up. And that is why he’s selected targets that would allow them to rise up and not hurt the people.  So was it an overstatement? Yes, but they should know better what he meant. Of course he did, because his deeds prove what he meant.  So what’s going on here? I think part of the problem is in the intimacy that some people on the Right have cultivated and developed with Trump. In other words. If you’re going to campaign with Trump, if you’re gonna be a regular visitor at Mar-a-Lago with Trump, if you’re gonna be an intimate of the family and if you’re gonna work with him and you’re a news person, then you feel… It’s apparently Steve Bannon felt that way.  Maybe Tucker feels that way. Maybe Megyn feels that way. Maybe Marjorie Taylor Greene felt that way. But if you feel that you have a special relationship, then you feel downcast or betrayed because not only your president, but your friend and associate that you’d helped, didn’t quite agree with you, but that it’s always better to have some distance so you can be empirical.  And if you’re empirical, then the question is: What’s the alternative to Donald Trump’s MAGA agenda, because if you look at the border, it’s closed. If you look at illegal immigration, he has deported 500,000 criminals. Another million have self-deported, and he is in the process of probably finishing another 500,000 deportees.  We should have two million. We’ve never done that before. If you look at energy right now, the United States has never produced so much oil and gas, and we’re right on the verge of a nuclear energy renaissance, and we’re going in Alaska. We’re going offshore. We’re trying to get more oil and gas in California. For all practical purposes, at least for now, DEI is dead.  No other president would’ve done that, this reverse racism or this tribal chauvinism that has so plagued the nation. Donald Trump ended that. He has put the universities on notice that they cannot continually defy civil rights laws and Supreme Court decisions. No one did that before.  As far as transgenderism, they’re on the defensive now. The idea that biological men will dominate female sports and men with biological male characteristics will dress among women is over.  So what I’m getting at is this: All of these critics agree with what Donald Trump has done on 80% of the issues. At least their record says they do. So why on one particular issue, in which you disagree, and it’s very doubtful that you can categorize this a forever or endless war.  It’s much more in the flavor of the Venezuela, the [Qasem] Soleimani, the [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi, the ISIS bombing. It is not anything near fighting house to house in Fallujah or going into hostile villages in Helmand province.  We’re not on the ground. We’re not fighting on the jihadist turf. We’re using our strength, air power and a distance from to mitigate casualties and inflict greater damage on the theocracy.  It’s not a forever, endless war, and they know that. So if you are apostates from the whole Trump agenda because of your disagreement about this one particular issue, and you feel that he betrayed you because you categorize it a forever or endless war, which he promised to avoid, then you’re nullifying the entire agenda.  And what is the alternative? A Kamala Harris agenda? I don’t know, an Eric Swalwell agenda. A Gavin Newsom agenda that’s antithetical to everything these people have stood for and lobbied for and advanced for.  And so if you sit out the midterms, or you oppose Trump de facto, whether you know it or not, you are favoring the alternate agenda.  And that agenda is something that, at least in your recent positions, you have adamantly opposed.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post One Disagreement, Total Revolt? Victor Davis Hanson Calls Out MAGA’s New ‘Defectors’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.  Jack Fowler: So, Victor, you had shared with me a long thread off of X by Miad Maleki, I think. I’m sorry if I mispronounced your name, sir. And it’s 10 points about the success, the economic success, of the blockade, the U.S. blockade. Would you like to take that on, my friend?  Victor Davis Hanson: I liked that article because it was analytical and empirical.  What he was saying were certain aspects that people had forgotten. They are receiving in their aggregate income about, was it $430-something million a day, Jack, in oil?  Fowler: Yeah.  Hanson: Oil, petrochemicals, and …  Fowler: Let’s just to say the collective economic damage—  Hanson: Yes. Collective, is that $435 million.  And you can see how, because everything they have, from washing machines to tires, that has to be imported, and you can stop everything if you control the Strait of Hormuz. And everybody talks about, well, they have the Caspian Sea, or they have a port on the other side of the strait, like the Gulf of Oman.  No. He points out that those are very minuscule areas of oil export. The big enchilada is Karg Island. Unfortunately for the Iranians, it’s way deep in the Persian Gulf. So they came up with the idea, they want to blockade that, fine. And they say, “We’re only going to let pro-Iranian ships in,” fine. They don’t have the wherewithal to enforce that. If they send out their narcotic-like PT boats, the warthogs, they can destroy them.  If they try to blanket the Gulf States and Israel with missiles, [Donald] Trump will lay the blow… He will just take out their dual-use generation and stuff, and that will stop that very quickly. So, what Trump basically did, Jack, is he said, OK, blockade—hmm, good idea, but you’re the wrong people blockading it. We’re going to have a blockade, but we’re going to borrow your idea that it’s selective. So we’re going to flip it upside down. You say nobody but pro-Iranian people can come in. We’re going to say nobody but anti-Iranian are going to come in. So any ship—and they’re going to have a problem with China because that’s 80% of the ships coming in to get the oil will be Chinese, but they’re going to have to turn back.  That’ll be explosive if they try to do it. I think eventually Trump will do it, and China will get angry and we’ll see what happens. But we have the wherewithal to stop it. And a couple things are going to happen, as he points out. They don’t have the storage capacity just to keep pumping oil and add it into Karg Island big fuel storage depots, or into ships that are idle there. At some point, very quickly, in a matter of days, they’re going to fill all those things up. And as he points out, with oil wells, if you just shut them down, they have to be maintained and they get water seepage. And it’s very hard and expensive to reboot them.  It’s a very intricate process. And he said they’re not going to be able to have any petrochemical or oil income because they’re not diversified with their ports like the Saudis are or the Emirates. And he made another good point, and I had written about that this morning, but I wrote it a couple of days ago, that they don’t understand the Gulf. They think it’s going to be forever 20% of the world’s oil leaves. And therefore, they are critical, because you’ve got to go close to their shore, and they’re going to interfere. And they just keep talking about that.  And while they’re talking, they don’t see the world is changing, and it’s changing rapidly. The Saudis now export most of their oil to the Red Sea. If the Houthis get orders to stop it, well, Trump bombed them for 56 days, and the Israelis and the Americans can shut down their power, their water, everything, if they try that. They’re going to build probably another pipeline to the Red Sea.  They’re talking about building one across the desert through Jordan to Haifa, or near Jerusalem. They’re talking about expanding the one that already exists in the Gulf of Oman, where you could get the oil before you got near the Strait. And at the same time, they think that nobody will touch their oil because it’s critical to the world price. Maybe, maybe not, one or 2 million barrels a day, but Ukraine and Russia are talking about a ceasefire.  You put Russian oil at full capacity on the market. You put Venezuela, which is increasing every day, a little bit, their oil output, and Trump says he is going to have another million barrels. You could say to the Iranians, “as long as your regime is in power, you’re not going to export any oil—not today, not six months from now.”  And the world economy would make the necessary adjustments, is what the writer is saying. He’s basically telling us that it’s a political challenge to Donald Trump. They have counted on the Left to embolden them. So their strategy is to indulge in accrued stereotype of the Middle East. They want to do a rug deal. And they want to barter and barter and barter and feign anger, and back and forth.  And they want that to draw that out for three to four to five months. And they want the economy to stall, the world economy, and then they want the Left to come in and take the House and take the Senate and cut off funds and stop the war.  I don’t think that’s going to happen. That’s their strategy. But what he’s trying to argue is that strategy requires a quiet population that can be intimidated, as it is now, but permanently so, and it requires some economic viability to survive. And they already can’t afford food, they can’t afford gas, they’re under attack, they’ve lost probably a half a billion dollars, half a trillion dollars in weapons and infrastructure that was accrued over 47 years.  They can’t rebuild that, and they can’t give money to the Arab terrorists, there are three or four proxies, five proxies in Syria and Iraq and Lebanon and Gaza and Yemen, without angering further the population.  As I said in this article, it’s one thing to tell the population, “Well, you don’t like us, but we restored the Iranian credibility. Everybody’s afraid of us. We’re the terror master.” And now the people are saying, “No, you’re not the terror masters of the Middle East. You’re a paper tiger. You’re buffoons.  “They’ve wiped you out. We’re going down the toilet with you. This is what you did. Nobody’s afraid of you anymore. You’re a bunch of clowns.” That is fatal to a dictatorship, to be humiliated and to be an object of ridicule.  So he points all of that out, I think, quite successfully, as did Michael Duran, who always has important things to say. He says seven myths about the Iranian war.  So I guess to sum up, the Left is in a bubble, and it’s all frenzied because Trump is under such criticism by Tucker Carlson or Megyn Kelly or Candace Owens, and they say, oh, the MAGA movement’s blowing apart. And everybody’s saying it’s lost. And they don’t look at the situation, you know. They don’t look at the actual military. It’s the most asymmetrical war in memory.  And Trump can adjudicate when it starts and when it ends. And if he wants to take up the Iranian challenge, it’ll be very interesting when American warships go through there and they’ve completely demined the area, this week, and tankers follow them. And they start to bring in those little mosquito boats and see what happens.  I think you’ll see a whole fleet of warthogs in the air, and they will blast them out of the water. And I think they’ll hit any missile within two or three minutes. They’ll know where it was launched, they’ll take that out.  But they’re not going to stop there. They’re going to tell them, OK, you’re broke now. You’ve got $400 million in economic damage plus, per day. Wait till you don’t have any power. And that will really shake up things. And somebody said, well, that would be inhumane. Well, then talk to Bill Clinton, because he shut down the power grid at Belgrade almost for a day or two every week, he did. And talk to Barack Obama. He shut down television stations in Libya, shut down the ports. He tried to do a lot of stuff. Which he said he didn’t do. So there’s a long tradition of dual-use targeting.  Fowler: Yeah. I mean, outside of war, we shut down the United States during COVID.  Hanson: I will say something more controversial. I really like The Wall Street Journal, but I’m getting very, very disappointed. I look at the headline stories in the news section, and I can’t distinguish them from The New York Times. It’s all doom and gloom. Trump did this and this, this is this. Then I say to myself, at least the editorial page—I really like Dan Henninger, Barton Swaim. Is that it? He’s very—  Fowler: Don’t forget Bill McGurn.  Hanson: Don’t forget Bill. Yeah, but I love Bill McGurn. I like Holman Jenkins, Kimberly, of course. But today, Gerald Baker, whom I really like, he’s a very brilliant guy, but he has succumbed to the pessimism of the news stories. And he’s basically saying that war is lost or it’s not going well. And it’s just anti-empirical, to say that, given the great difference in damage.  I can see that he’s upset with Trump’s exclamations, but that doesn’t disguise the fact that we’ve done so much damage to this Iranian military. And the economic damage hasn’t even taken its full toll yet. But it’s now at a crisis point, and they know it, and that’s why they wanted to negotiate.  And their idea—  Fowler: Inflation is nearly 50% there.  Hanson: Yeah, they’re broke, and everybody said it was brilliant—nobody imagined they would close it. Now, they knew they were going to try that, but they don’t have the naval facilities to close it. Not against the US Navy. And all they’re going to do is say, well, we’re going to close it. And the Americans said, well, we weren’t going to do that, but because you gave us the idea, or you think it’s OK, we’ll do it.  But none of your friends are coming in, and all of your enemies are. And they’re all going to get oil from the Arab exporters. But they’re not going to get any from you.  And so it’s going to flip back on them. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post ‘Paper Tiger’ Exposed: Victor Davis Hanson on Trump’s Strategy Crushing Iran appeared first on The Daily Signal.