Nobody Asked, but Amanda Seales Challenges Narrative That Kamala Harris Would Be Peaceful on Iran | WATCH

0 0 3 minutes read

Nobody Asked, but Amanda Seales Challenges Narrative That Kamala Harris Would Be Peaceful on Iran | WATCH

Amanda Seales Critiques Kamala Harris’s Iran Stance

*Even though it’s pointless, comedian and activist Amanda Seales is stirring political debate after questioning whether former Vice President Kamala Harris would have handled Iran more peacefully than Donald Trump. Her comments countered claims circulating on social media that a Harris presidency would have avoided military escalation in the Middle East.

Seales pointed to Harris’s past public statements—especially those from 2024—as evidence that she has taken a hawkish approach toward Iran, raising doubts about the narrative that she would have relied on diplomacy over confrontation.

Seales Points to Harris’s Past Rhetoric on Iran

Seales cited Harris’s October 2024 interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” where Harris called Iran the “greatest adversary” of the United States and accused the regime of having “American blood on their hands” following a missile attack on Israeli bases.

She also highlighted Harris’s consistent support for Israel, including her remarks labeling Iran a “dangerous” and “destabilizing” force in the Middle East and her refusal to rule out military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

>Seales argued that Harris’s rhetoric aligns closely with traditional U.S. foreign policy talking points and that, had she been elected in 2024, her administration may have taken an aggressive posture toward Tehran, not unlike Trump’s

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Watch Live Bitez (@livebitez)

Critics and Supporters React to Seales’s Commentary

Reactions to Seales’s stance were mixed. Some users on X (formerly Twitter) praised her for challenging mainstream Democratic narratives. One user wrote: “Amanda is right—Kamala labeled Iran the greatest enemy, and her husband’s ties don’t help.”

Others criticized Seales, accusing her of oversimplifying the issue. One critic said: “She shared a clip of Kamala on Iran as if she’d be bombing like Trump—lazy and misleading.”

Seales also received pushback for previously controversial opinions, including a conspiracy theory about the 2024 assassination attempt on Trump. Some commenters questioned her credibility as a political commentator.

Harris’s Foreign Policy: A Complex Record

As vice president under Joe Biden, Harris supported efforts to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons through diplomacy. She also backed ceasefire negotiations in Gaza and spoke out against unilateral military action without congressional approval.

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris attends a campaign event at Divine Faith Ministries International on October 20, 2024 in Jonesboro, Georgia. (Photo by Megan Varner/Getty Images)

However, she consistently defended U.S. aid to Israel and emphasized military readiness against Iran, particularly in moments of heightened conflict. Her nuanced position led to criticism from both progressives and conservatives.

During her 2024 campaign, Harris walked a fine line—promoting Israel’s right to self-defense while also expressing concern for Palestinian civilians, which some saw as contradictory.

Seales’s Broader Critique of Democratic Leadership

Seales has long been critical of mainstream Democratic figures, especially Kamala Harris. She previously slammed Harris for calling the U.S. “not a racist country” and has accused her of being politically inconsistent or vague on key issues.

On the issue of Iran, Seales framed Harris’s strong alignment with Israel—and her marriage to Doug Emhoff, whom Seales called a “Zionist”—as reasons to question Harris’s potential foreign policy decisions had she been elected president.

Seales argued that Harris’s hawkish tone and political alliances suggest she may have responded to Iran with force, similar to or even beyond what Trump has done in his second term.

Debate Reflects Growing Fractures in Progressive Circles

The debate over Harris’s Iran stance, reignited by Seales’s critique, reveals deeper divides within progressive movements. While some view Harris as a symbol of representation and experience, others question her alignment with establishment foreign policy norms.

Seales’s comments tap into frustration among activists who believe that Democratic leaders often promote diplomacy in words but support military actions in practice. This tension continues to shape political discourse, especially on foreign affairs.

Whether or not Harris runs for office again, her legacy—and how activists like Seales interpret it—will remain a point of contention as Democrats redefine their post-2024 identity.