The clash occurred during a debate on CNN’s “NewsNight with Abby Phillip” over whether Congress should impose additional restrictions on President Trump’s authority to conduct military operations against Iran.
Jennings, who has emerged as one of the most aggressive
defenders of Trump’s recent military posture toward Tehran, argued that America
cannot afford to view Iran through the lens of diplomacy alone.
“We can’t be all rainbows and unicorns with the Iranians,” Jennings said before making the comment that ignited the segment.
“They’ve been at war with us for 47 years. Forty-seven years!”
Sunshine immediately challenged the framing.
“Forty-seven years? Why did I learn about… I’m sorry, the first time I’ve heard about the 47-year Iran war was like this year,” she replied. “We don’t teach about the 47-year war with Iran in school.”
Jennings responded with a jab that quickly went viral.
“I’m sorry you don’t read much. Did you just start following the news this year?”
Evidently not, because it has been only since President Donald Trump started this war that we have heard this "at war with us for 47 years" fabrication. Since then, however, we have heard it from many supporters of the regime. Continuing
From there, things only escalated.
Sunshine argued that describing decades of hostility with Iran as a continuous war diminishes actual military conflicts involving American troops.
“We don’t teach about the 47-year war with Iran in school. Like, it’s insulting to actual conflicts that we’ve been involved in,” she said.
And, as Sunshine probably meant, insulting to the men and women, living and dead, involved in those actual conflicts. Nonetheless
Jennings fired back.
“It’s insulting to your intelligence that you have no idea
what the Iranians have done.”
The exchange exposed a growing divide inside the broader America First movement over foreign policy, particularly as President Trump intensifies pressure on Tehran following renewed attacks on commercial shipping and escalating threats from Iranian leaders.
While Jennings argued that Iran has spent decades killing Americans through proxy forces, attacking U.S. allies, sponsoring terrorism, and seeking nuclear capabilities, Sunshine questioned whether the current strategy risks drawing America into another prolonged Middle East conflict.
“How many Americans have they killed on U.S. soil in the 47 years we’ve been in the war?” she asked.
Jennings responded that Iran-backed activities have killed and maimed thousands of Americans over the years.
“They’ve killed thousands of Americans — they have maimed American soldiers,” he said.
O.K., now Jennings has approached the realm of reality, though his numbers still are way off. Thousands are a lot more than hundreds and even if including terrorist groups Iran directly or indirectly supported, the figure is well inflated.
In June, 2025, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a neoconservative organization which has supported the current war against Iran, compiled a list of "Iranian and Iranian-Backed Attacks Against Americans" since November, 1979, when 66 Americans were taken hostage and held at the American embassy in Iran. (The word "Backed" is used very loosely.)
In all, 363 Americans, or 363 too many, were killed between 9/79 and 6/25, inclusive. From there (or something less comprehensive and accurate), Jennings gets his "thousands." The number does not include September 11, 2001, about which the Foundation notes
While the 9/11 Commission Report concludes that Iran had no foreknowledge of al Qaeda’s attacks on the World Trade Center, the report indicates that Tehran facilitated the travel of some of the terrorists. “In sum,” the report notes, “there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”
Strong evidence. Facilitated. Transit. Into and out of Afghanistan (not the USA). Some of these. Compare that to another Middle East nation, which has been the subject of ongoing litigation by 9/11 fmilies. One individual has pointed out "There still remain all of these loose ends and paths that lead back to Saudi Arabia." Nonetheless, the centerpiece of President Trump's relationship with the Kingdom is "investments from, partnerships with, and high-value U.S. exports." Which is to say: the deaths of Americans in years past at the hands of a foreign nation or its proxies has nothing to do with Donald Trump's policy in the region.
Off-topic of this post but presented for full context
The most revealing moment may have come later in the exchange when Sunshine questioned both the costs and end goals of the administration’s approach.
“If we’re going to keep going, what’s your number? How many U.S. troops are you willing to expend to achieve your objectives and what amount of money?” she asked.
Jennings was unmoved.
“What amount of money am I willing to spend to keep the
American people safe from the worst regime in the world? A fair amount.”
The debate has been building on the right for months.
One faction believes Iran’s rulers have spent nearly five decades waging a shadow war against America through terrorism, proxy militias, hostage-taking, attacks on shipping lanes, and threats against U.S. leaders. Another faction remains deeply skeptical of any policy that could lead to an open-ended military commitment overseas, even under a Republican president.
Jennings: Iran has been at war with us for 47 years.
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 10, 2026
Sunshine: The first time I've ever heard about the 47 year Iran war was like this year. pic.twitter.com/fo6ahm1sWV
If we are to believe that "they've been at war with us for 47 years," then in all fairness, Jennings should be charging a prominent American with treason for actions with repercussions in the years since. An
open letter from 47 Republican senators in March, 2015 "marked anusually public and aggressive attempt to undermine" President Obama and other world powers "to limit Iran's nuclear programs."
Believed to be the author, Arkansas' Tom Cotton warned of "two features of our Constitution- the power to make binding international agreements and the different charcter of federal offices- which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress." He said that these two meant
that we will consider any agreement regrding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and futrue Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
Cotton et al. were suggesting that Tehran shun the offer from the duly-elected president of the USA and five other world leaders. Bharging the Senators with treason would have been politically explosive and extremely divisive. However, the best legal reason not to do so would have been that a charge of treason would have been constitutionally dubious because this country was not at war with Iran.
Nor are we now at war with Iran- not now, not anytime in the past 47 years. Claiming that Iran has been at war with the USA for nearly the past half-century repesents an effort to convince voters that drastic action needed to be taken against the Mideast nation and that only President Trump had the courage and wisdom to do so, though it has made the region far more dangerous. It is an exercise in trying to make chicken salad from chicken- well, you know.
No comments:
Post a Comment