I was on vacation with friends when the U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran happened, which was inconvenient because I was trying to avoid the news. Normally, on vacation I treat current events the way I treat home gym equipment — merely acknowledging their existence as I move on. But this strike felt substantial – attacks on foreign soil have a way of doing that.

So between errant golf shots and seafood, I did what any responsible citizen does: I doom-scrolled. And right on cue, outrage arrived before the dust had settled.

California Governor Gavin Newsom accused President Trump of manufacturing a crisis — a performance of “weakness masquerading as strength,” he stated. It was reckless and had no endgame.

Remarkably, earlier that same day, the governor had described Iran’s regime as “corrupt and repressive.” He insisted it must never obtain nuclear weapons, suggesting its leadership “must go.”

It’s a delicate balance. Apparently, the regime must go — just not in any way that involves it actually doing something.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris warned that Trump was dragging America into a war the public does not want. She cautioned against “regime change” and described the strikes as a dangerous gamble.

This is where modern political vocabulary becomes fascinating.

A limited strike is now a “war.” Soon the war becomes a “crisis.” Prevention is “escalation.” Action becomes “recklessness.”

Inaction, of course, would have been “weakness.”

The dictionary seems to changes depending on who sits behind the Resolute Desk.  

One suspects the outcome would have been unacceptable regardless of the decision, but that’s rude to say out loud.

Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Schumer summoned colleagues back to Washington to discuss limiting Trump’s authority. The urgency was impressive as Congress hasn’t moved that quickly since someone proposed a pay increase. The lone common-sense voice from the Left was Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, who actually puts thought into what he is for or against.

The pattern is familiar. If Trump does nothing, he is accused of appeasement. If he does something, he is accused of imperial overreach. The pattern is predictable, whatever Trump is doing, it must be fought tooth-and-nail by the Left.

What’s most fascinating isn’t the disagreement. Disagreement is healthy. It’s the reflex.

For years we’ve been told, repeatedly and emphatically, that Iran must never get nuclear weapons. That it’s regime is threatening and its leadership sponsors terror. But when the strike actually occurs against that same leadership, the larger threat suddenly becomes the strike itself. It raises the question:

At what point does “never” begin?

Predictably, the media amplified protests in America’s largest cities, earnest gatherings of sign-holders explaining Middle Eastern geopolitics in twelve-word chants with a smattering of “Defund Ice.” Protest is an American right. Selective camera placement shouldn’t be.

Less airtime was devoted to the Iranians at home, and those who fled the regime, that reportedly celebrated the removal of hardline leadership by dancing in the street. That footage doesn’t fit into a “reckless warmonger” narrative.

None of this is to suggest that strikes are simple, or that consequences won’t follow. Geopolitics is not a board game. There are no clean hands in that arena.

But the speed with which conclusions are reached – before facts mature suggests something deeper than concern. It suggests habit. We are no longer evaluating decisions. We are reacting to arch enemies at home.

If another president had ordered the same operation, some of today’s critics would likely be praising restored deterrence. If Trump had chosen restraint, the Left would be demanding strength.

Policy matters but sadly in this day and age, politics matter more.

By the time my awful golf score was tallied, the takes had hardened. The think pieces were written. Moral clarity was declared as the missiles were still cooling.

I found myself wondering whether we are more addicted to outrage than we are committed to outcomes.

Because outrage is easier.

It requires very little patience.