The radical left, long critical of U.S. military interventions, has spiraled into a new frenzy of what some call “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) following President Donald Trump’s Saturday night bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities—Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan—on June 21, 2025. For decades, leftist groups have opposed U.S. aggression in the Middle East, yet their reaction to Trump’s decisive strike has been less about policy critique and more about visceral, almost theatrical outrage. Social media platforms like X are ablaze with hyperbolic claims, with some activists comparing Trump to historical tyrants or predicting apocalyptic fallout, despite the strikes being targeted and limited in scope. This heightened TDS, as described by critics like Charles Krauthammer in its original “Bush Derangement Syndrome” form, manifests as an inability to separate legitimate concerns—such as escalation risks or constitutional questions about Trump’s authority—from irrational hysteria. The left’s fixation on Trump’s persona, rather than the strategic implications of a setback to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, reveals a reflex to demonize him even when his actions align with long-standing U.S. goals of curbing Iran’s nuclear threat, a step neither Democratic nor Republican administrations dared to take in the past 45 years.

NeverTrump neoconservatives, like Bill Kristol, find themselves in an awkward bind, their own strain of TDS clashing with their hawkish instincts. For years, figures like Kristol have criticized Iran’s nuclear program and advocated for aggressive U.S. action, yet their decade-long opposition to Trump—rooted in his rejection of traditional GOP foreign policy—has left them grappling with cognitive dissonance. Kristol’s public support for the strikes, urging to “bomb Fordo and be done with it,” contrasts sharply with his NeverTrump rhetoric, prompting accusations of opportunism from critics like Matt Duss, who tweeted that Kristol’s war cheerleading exposes his lack of democratic credibility. This unexpected alignment with Trump’s bold move, which no president since the 1979 Iranian Revolution dared attempt, has fractured the NeverTrump coalition. Some neocons quietly praise the strikes as a necessary blow to Iran, while others cling to their anti-Trump dogma, framing the attack as reckless despite its alignment with their own long-held views. Their TDS, once defined by rejecting Trump’s isolationism, now struggles to reconcile their ideological roots with his audacious execution of a policy they’ve championed.

The radical left and NeverTrump neocons, though ideologically opposed, share a common thread in their exaggerated reactions, driven by a polarized political landscape that amplifies TDS. The left’s outrage ignores the context of Iran’s near-nuclear capability, as reported by Israeli intelligence, and the neocons’ conflicted support reveals their selective indignation. Both groups, having criticized past administrations for inaction on Iran, now face a Trump who acted where others hesitated, forcing them to confront their biases. The strikes, described by Trump as a “complete and total success,” have not only disrupted Iran’s nuclear program but also exposed the emotional and intellectual contortions of his critics. As Adam Gopnik noted in 2017, TDS can cloud judgment, and this latest episode suggests it has reached new heights, with both factions struggling to articulate coherent critiques amid their fixation on Trump himself. This unprecedented action, bypassing 45 years of diplomatic stalemate, has thus become a litmus test for the depth of their derangement, revealing more about their psychological entanglement with Trump than about the policy itself.