About a month ago, a spicy debate swept through the New York Times’ newsroom:
The head of the baseball players’ union resigned last week after an internal investigation found that he had an “inappropriate relationship” with his sister-in-law, who was also an employee. At first, it wasn’t clear whether the affair was with his wife’s sister or his brother’s wife, and social media — as well as our little newsletter team — broke into an intense debate over which was worse.
[…]
If you sleep with your sibling’s spouse, [philosophy professor Kwame] Anthony pointed out, you’ve not only set off a bomb in your marriage, but also in what he called “your natal family, the people you’re connected to by blood.” Other siblings, parents, nieces and nephews could be collateral damage. You’ve betrayed the two people you’re supposed to be most loyal to. “It’s not just adultery,” he noted, “it’s violating the family relationship you’ve had since birth.”
If you cheat with your spouse’s sibling, it might be easier on your family. But you’re doing all that extra harm to her and her family. As Anthony put it, “You’re denying her the person it would be most natural for her to go to to seek solace.” And if it’s worse for your betrayed spouse, he said, it’s worse overall. [emphasis added]
So, what would be worse: An affair with your wife’s sister or your brother’s wife?
Why, what a splendid idea for a column, I thought to myself! After all, my wife has a sister (shout-out to Melanie) and my brother has a wife (shout-out to Naomi). Which means, I’m perfectly positioned to offer an opinion!
So I thought about it for maybe 30 seconds…
…and then realized there’s absolutely NO WAY IN HELL to answer that question without sounding like a frickin’ creep (and/or getting weird looks at the next family reunion).
Some questions, alas, lack an acceptable answer, no matter how hard you try.
The late Donald Rumsfeld differentiated between the “known knowns,” the “known unknowns,” the “unknown unknowns,” and the “unknown knowns.” I’m still unsure which category our horrendous mismanagement of post-war Iraq fell under, but however it’s classified, the Bush administration’s expectations were mugged by cold, hard reality.
War is unpredictable. Random. It’s the theater of the unexpected. To paraphrase a Congressional Medal of Honor-winning Vietnam veteran, when it comes to war, “You never know what you’re gonna get.”
War’s unpredictability is a known unknown — and Iran probably won’t be the exception to the rule. There WILL be surprises.
It’s tempting for Team MAGA to adopt a philosophy that’s half QAnon and half Mandalorian: “Trust the plan” and “This is the way.” Donald Trump, after all, got where he is by wheeling and dealing; this is the “Art of the Deal” presidency — and Trump’s sky-high, record-setting approval rating amongst Republicans speaks for itself.
Whereas past presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, ran (mostly) on policy platforms, “America First” is attitudinal: It’s an approach, not an agenda.
That’s why the overwhelming majority of conservatives are perfectly content to let Trump cook: We trust his war plan will lead to an “America First” outcome.
That’s been the hallmark of the Trump presidency; one way or another, Trump gets results. (And not always on his first or second attempt either. He’s like George Washington with the cherry tree, swinging away ‘til the whole tree comes down.)
He achieved unparalleled results on the border — even when the Deep State prevented his wall from being fully built. He got results with public safety, dropping the U.S. crime rate to a 120-year low. He overthrew Maduro, blew up drug boats, ended DEI, lowered taxes, cut regulations, renegotiated trade deals, and drove 2.5 million illegals out of the country. If past performance is the best indicator of future results, we have every reason to be optimistic that the Iran War’s outcome will be “America First,” too.
But the tragic truth is, there are no guarantees.
It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.
—Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation
Right now, Donald Trump is at the gambling table. As best we can tell, he’s playing the odds masterfully: The U.S.-Israeli alliance has already dramatically diminished Iran’s capacity for regional mischief — and with minimal loss of American lives:
More Americans have been killed in Chicago in the past four weeks than the number of Americans killed fighting Iran.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) March 26, 2026
Just going by the body count, instead of “No blood for oil!” it ought to be “No blood for Pablo!” because, whatever the true rate of illegal immigrant crime is, more American blood is being spilled by “undocumented migrants” on U.S. soil than by the mullahs in Iran. Sheridan Gorman, an 18-year-old Layola University student, would’ve been safer at a U.S. military base in the Middle East than at Tobey Prinz Beach in northern Chicago.
The most probable outcome of the Iran War continues to be:
- There won’t be a peace deal until the U.S. exhausts its list of military targets and decides the Iranian regime is on its last legs. (Which probably won’t be for several more weeks.)
- Until then, President Trump will hint at peace deals to placate the markets — as well as secret negotiations to sow discord within Iran. But no deal will come to fruition. (It’s all just for show: Until the end date, we’ve gotta give TV’s talking heads something new to talk about.)
- After a few more weeks of decimating the Iranian leadership and weakening its ability to crush a rebellion, the Americans and Israelis will stop bombing, provide air cover for the Iranian people, and “grease the wheels” for a popular uprising.
- A new regime will emerge in Iran. It won’t be perfect, nor will it be a Western-style democracy (most likely), but it’ll be a helluva lot better than the old one.
- With the Iranian cancer excised, the Middle East will stabilize, the markets will normalize, inflation will drop, U.S. regional influence will grow, and the American people will be safer, wealthier, and more secure.
But this is still a red-hot war — and war is unpredictable. There are no guarantees.
And that’s the scariest truth for Republicans to accept: Even if Trump plays everything perfectly, we could still lose.
“That is not a weakness. That is life.”
The Democrats, quite naturally, adamantly oppose the Iran War: 90% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters disapprove of Trump’s Iran policies — and some leftwing activists have gone farther than that:
Despicable pro-Iran protesters in Philadelphia declare, ‘for every US soldier that comes home in a casket we cheer’ https://t.co/vfnl4yWtey pic.twitter.com/dS729A73gJ
— New York Post (@nypost) March 26, 2026
Which means, for the Democratic Party (and its liberal base) to win politically, the United States must lose militarily.
It’s performative pacifism, because it’s consequence-free advocacy. The Dems are the out-of-power party; they don’t need to “win” in order to win.
They just need America to lose.
So the DNC’s PR strategy is to act like a big magnifying glass and shine a bright spotlight on everything that goes wrong. Whether it’s inflation, the price of oil, fatalities, or grumpy diplomatic talk from European “allies,” the Dems are more interested in overthrowing MAGA than overthrowing the mullahs.
They’ll do whatever it takes to bleed Trump politically — even if it means American servicemen will bleed, too.
But the sad, tragic truth that the Dems won’t admit is twofold:
- Historically speaking, betting against the U.S. Armed Forces is a foolish bet. (We don’t always win, but we win MUCH more than we lose.) Bet against the American military at your own peril.
- Ignoring evil won’t make it go away. Very often, it postpones the inevitable — making the confrontation worse. Instead of confronting Iran when it’s at its weakest — where we eliminated the supreme leader (and his circle of nitwits) in the opening salvo — the Dems’ approach would’ve given Iran time to recover and rebuild. That’s their dirty little secret: Just as there’s a risk in taking action, there’s a risk in nonaction, too.
Our choice wasn’t war or peace. Such kneejerk simplicity doesn’t exist in the real world; only fools (or propagandists) think otherwise. There was a risk going to war, and there was also a risk not going to war.
All decisions have risk.
A wise leader balances the risks and rewards, plays the odds — and works like hell to optimize his chances as the “known knowns” become clearer. A wartime leader must be opportunistic and pivot when low-hanging fruit appears — because low-hanging fruit is just as sweet as the fruit on top of the tree.
When the facts on the ground change, so should your tactics. Because, in war, change is constant.
That’s the fundamental difference between President Trump and the Democrats: He’s utterly unafraid to pivot.
Whereas President George W. Bush sought to anchor himself in place and stubbornly battle the tides, President Trump is more like a surfer riding the waves — so when a new wave breaks, he’s first in line to catch it.
Today’s Democrats, paradoxically, are exactly like George W. Bush: They’ve anchored themselves firmly in place, entrenched in their steadfast opposition to the president — and by extension, the U.S. Armed Forces. In their minds, the Iran War is bad… because Trump is bad.
Therefore, they’ve staked their political future on the Iran War failing.
And because of it, they’re trapped. Even if/when the facts on the ground change, they’ve painted themselves into a corner — and the longer the Iran War goes, the more obvious it’ll be to the American people.
Meanwhile, President Trump is still wheeling and dealing, reconfiguring the chessboard, shaking up the status quo until it’s to his liking. He’ll gouge eyeballs, break thumbs, and do whatever it takes to achieve victory.
There are no guarantees, but it’s better to be flexible than trapped.
The sad, tragic truth for the GOP is the lack of certainty: All wars, including this one, have risk. But the upside is, President Trump has a free hand to keep pounding away until victory is achieved — and with the combined resources of the CIA, Mossad, IDF, and U.S. Armed Forces, he’s playing Texas Hold ‘Em with pocket aces.
And if you’ve got pocket aces, you win 85% of the time. This is still America’s game to lose.
The sad, tragic truth for the Democrats is that they’ve stupidly gone “all in” against the success of the U.S. military — and that’s almost always a losing hand. Furthermore, by brazenly dismissing the risk of inaction, they’ve branded themselves as the party whose hatred of Trump outweighs EVERYTHING else — including a nuclear-armed Iran with thousands of ballistic missiles and overseas terrorist proxies.
They’ve created a paradigm where the Dems only win if America loses.
And that’s a really tough sell to the voters. No good answers when you’re cheerleading your own country’s demise. No acceptable response without looking like a creepy, soulless ghoul.
Gotta hand it to the Dems: Somehow, by comparison, they managed to make the sister-in-law question a walk in the park.
One Last Thing: 2026 is a critical year for America First: It began with Mayor Mamdani declaring war on “rugged individualism” and will reach a crescendo with the midterm elections. Nothing less than the fate of the America First movement teeters in the balance.
Never before have the political battlelines been so clearly defined. Win or lose, 2026 will transform our country.
We need your help to succeed!
As a PJ Media VIP member, you’ll receive exclusive access to our behind-the-paywall content, commentating privileges, and an ad-free experience. VIP Gold gets you the same level of “insider access” across our entire family of sites (PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, twitchy, Hot Air, and Bearing Arms). That means: More stories, more videos, more content, more fun, more conservatism, more EVERYTHING!
And if you CLICK HERE and use the promo code FIGHT you’ll receive a Trumpian 60% discount!
Thank you for your consideration.
