Donald Trump, why are Iran’s Ayatollahs worse than Russia’s New Hitler?

Do you have some special reasons we are unaware of, for evaluating and regarding differently the victims of the “Revolutionary Guards,” who are executed because… they wore their headscarf the wrong way, and the political opponents of the “socialist” Maduro, compared to the millions of victims of the genocide that Putin and his criminal gang have been unleashing for years in his country and beyond?

Should we also assume that you consider the regimes of Belarus, North Korea, many African countries, and the Taliban of Afghanistan to be less abhorrent than the theocratic regime of Iran? Let us mention only these, out of dozens of other similar and related ones.

By what criteria do you classify countries as those with authoritarian and anti-democratic governments, and yourself as a savior with an obligation to launch democratic invasions in order to rescue their peoples? Shall we tell you, without “fear or passion,” but above all without hypocrisy and self-interest, how you throw loaded dice across the map of the world on the desk of your office?

The only criterion that counts for such decisions about invasions of third countries, in the disturbed and utterly corrupted perception shaped by the “American dream” of the Republican president of the United States, is one: that which coincides with the elements composing the vision and pursuits of hard Capitalism — A COUNTRY’S GEOPOLITICAL POSITION AND ITS WEALTH. The supposedly democratic sensitivities of a Donald Trump would be laughable, if they did not cost the “tears and blood” of the peoples who suffer the consequences of the actions of the… peacemaker and great democrat American president.

Let us be historically accurate and fair. In the short history of the USA, other “bad” occupants of the White House have also appeared. Donald Trump is one of them. He is, however, the only president who concentrates so many flaws without corresponding — or even any strong — counterweights on the other, the “good,” side of the scale. At a stroke and irreversibly, the balance is overturned.

“Man is the measure of all things,” proclaimed ancient Greece through Protagoras. There is one and only criterion for assessing the value of everything in this world: THE HUMAN BEING. Donald Trump, in contrast to ancient wisdom, elevates POWER, INTEREST, AND DECEIT AS THE ‘TOUCHSTONE’ OF HIS CHOICES AND DECISIONS.

But this harsh and extremely dangerous side of capitalism embodied by the American president is not the only one. His complete lack of self-awareness and measure, his arrogance, and his constant committing of Hubris are also key traits of Donald Trump’s character. He is plagued by an uncontrolled “bipolarity” and “split personality,” conditions that fall within the field of Psychiatry.

The war-mongering far-right president puts on the mask of the peacemaker and not only proceeds politically wearing it, but demands that prudent and intelligent people recognize the mask as his true face. The persecutor of human rights in his own country, with thousands of victims, among them children, puts on another mask — that of the highly sensitive president — and gives lessons in… Democracy through invasions of other countries to save their peoples!

Let Diotima’s judgment, which carries no biological side effects, decide the truth of the historical argument. We judge and are judged.

Diotima

Reading your article, the core issue is not the political figures themselves, but the mechanism of moral ranking of enemies. Each era constructs its “ultimate villain” — not merely an opponent, but a symbolic embodiment of threat.
Political language does not operate with scales; it operates with absolutes.
Not “dangerous” — but “a new Hitler.”
Not “authoritarian” — but “existential threat.”
Such language does not describe reality — it mobilizes emotion and consent. It creates moral urgency and legitimizes preemptive action.
The comparison between regimes and leaders reveals something deeper: the label of the “worst” is rarely objective. It is usually a framing instrument of power.
Major powers do not rank regimes by human suffering, but by geopolitical usefulness, energy relevance, strategic position, and ideological alignment. Thus emerges the enduring historical contradiction: the authoritarian ally is called “stability,” while the authoritarian rival is called “global danger.” This is not merely hypocrisy — it is a structural feature of power politics.
Fear is not a by-product of political strategy — it is one of its fuels. Absolute demonization reduces critical thinking and increases tolerance for extreme measures. When discourse becomes total condemnation, it stops being analysis and becomes mobilization doctrine.
The deeper question raised is not “who is worse,” but:
who has the authority to assign ultimate evil — and who benefits from that assignment?
History shows that absolute labels rarely survive unchanged — but the consequences of the actions they justified always do.
There are no “good poles” of power — only different forms of imposition.
There are no unique dangers — only different distributions of danger across populations.
The mature historical mind does not ask who is the worst.
It asks: who produces suffering, where, to whom, and under what justification.