The New York Post published an eyebrow-raising report this week that President Donald Trump recently received a surprising intelligence briefing about the possible sexuality of Iran’s new so-called “supreme leader.” According to the newspaper’s sources, the president was “stunned to learn last week that U.S. intelligence indicates new Iranian supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei may be gay — and that his father, the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, feared his suitability to rule the Islamic Republic for that reason.” It’s unclear whether this briefing occurred at all, or if its alleged contents are accurate. It’s entirely possible that this claim was leaked to embarrass or undermine the regime. It’s also plausible that Mojtaba Khamenei’s sexuality has been handled by his now-deceased father as an “impotence” issue, for which he has reportedly been treated in the West.
Regardless of the veracity of this intelligence, it’s worth making the following point: If, in fact, the regime’s new “leader” is gay, he’s enjoyed a far better fate than many accused gay Iranians over the years. Being born gay as the son of an Islamofascist butcher is a nightmare, of course, but being flown abroad for “impotence” treatments is undoubtedly preferable to the abuse, repression, and murder imposed upon people accused of being gay. This isn’t some relic of the past. Suspected gay people have been executed by the regime in the very recent past, including this horrifying story from 2022. Such examples span the decades. If the regime’s new top cleric is truly gay, his ability to avoid the gallows is a mark of privilege and protection. Incidentally, it’s anyone’s guess if this man is still alive at all, as rumors swirl about him being incapacitated by an airstrike. The regime insists he’s in charge, but “his” statements have all been relayed by other people, as he has not appeared on camera or even audio since ascending to the new position.
Trump highlighted the barbaric reality of the regime’s lethal homophobia in an interview with Jake Paul on Friday. “We support gays, but they throw gays off the buildings,” Trump said, comparing America’s tolerance and legal protections to the Iranian regime’s savagery. The conversation made a similar point on women’s rights, as well: “I was a bit shocked that so many activists in America didn’t like it,” Paul observed. “Meanwhile, they were like, ‘Oh, well, we support women. We want women to have all these rights.’ Meanwhile, you’re liberating the women of Iran,” he told the president. Granted, there are many governments across the globe that inflict heinous abuses on elements of their populations. That’s not a sufficient reason for U.S. military intervention. Iran’s regime poses a unique threat to the United States, the region, and the world, which is why Operation Epic Fury is justified, in many Americans’ minds — if not overdue.
CALIFORNIA’S TRAINS TO NOWHERE
Nevertheless, it’s striking how so many identity-focused Western activists are silent on the evils of the regime. To someone whose top issue is LGBT rights, the mullahs of Tehran should be utterly reviled global villains on that front. The same point stands on women’s rights (despite the worse-than-useless United Nations seeing fit to place Iran’s regime on various human rights boards and panels in recent years, including, perversely, the Commission on the Status of Women). Domestic political differences are a lousy and cowardly excuse to lose one’s voice on fundamental questions of human rights, particularly for self-proclaimed human rights “champions.” Yet, many self-stylized advocates have nothing to say, even as Iranian women (including high-profile women) risk everything.
Why? Opposition to Trump’s presidency, or even his decision to take this action to annihilate the regime’s military capacity and nuclear ambitions, is one thing. Stony silence as Iranians celebrate the operation and yearn for the downfall of their oppressors — and as the regime slaughters tens of thousands of them in the streets — is another thing altogether. It’s a choice. And it’s indefensible, particularly from those who insist upon preening and lecturing society on related matters. This is a very easy test to pass on human rights. If “silence is violence,” as they often preach, what’s the excuse here?