Actor Michael Rapaport tore into Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Sunday, accusing both far-left Democrats of staying silent while Iran’s brutal regime slaughtered tens of thousands of its own people, then rushing to condemn President Donald Trump’s military strikes against Tehran’s dictatorship.
Rapaport didn’t mince words.
“You said 0.0 during the last few weeks as 35k civilians were slaughtered raped and arrested in Iran. Resign,” he wrote to Ocasio-Cortez.
You said 0.0 during the last few weeks as 35k civilians were slaughtered raped and arrested in Iran.
Resign https://t.co/QqfG80VN8X— MichaelRapaport (@MichaelRapaport) February 28, 2026
He delivered a similar message to Mamdani:
“You said 0.0 during the last few weeks as 35k plus civilians were slaughtered raped and arrested in Iran.
“Shovel Snow & get me my free shit.”
You said 0.0 during the last few weeks as 35k plus civilians were slaughtered raped and arrested in Iran.
Shovel Snow & get me my free shit https://t.co/dNkEiRLSqi— MichaelRapaport (@MichaelRapaport) February 28, 2026
Democrats Condemn Trump, Not Tehran
The criticism followed President Trump’s authorization of surprise strikes targeting Iran’s ruling mullahs.
Ocasio-Cortez condemned the president’s actions, accusing him of failing to pursue “diplomacy” and describing him as a “president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions.”
Mamdani called the military campaign a “catastrophic” and “illegal” war.
Rapaport’s point was simple: neither lawmaker had publicly condemned the regime during the weeks of reported violence against Iranian civilians protesting for democratic reform.
The ‘Diplomacy’ Question
Ocasio-Cortez’s call for diplomacy drew particular scrutiny.
U.S.-Iran diplomatic engagement has spanned decades, including negotiations, sanctions relief efforts, and nuclear agreements.
Critics argue that despite repeated attempts at engagement, Tehran has continued to suppress dissent domestically while supporting militant groups abroad.
Rapaport’s challenge centered on timing, as many question why there was no visible outrage from progressive leaders during reports of widespread arrests and violence inside Iran, but immediate condemnation once U.S. strikes began.
Selective Outrage?
Mamdani’s denunciation of the strikes as “illegal” also drew backlash from critics who argue that progressive leaders often reserve their sharpest rhetoric for U.S. actions rather than authoritarian regimes abroad.
Rapaport, who is known as a liberal political voice, framed his criticism as a question of consistency rather than ideology.
He asked, in effect: Where were the statements when civilians were reportedly being arrested and killed?
Neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Mamdani publicly responded to Rapaport’s remarks as of this report.
A Broader Debate
The exchange reflects a broader divide over how U.S. leaders should respond to hostile regimes and internal crackdowns abroad.
Supporters of President Trump argue that decisive military action against Tehran’s leadership was necessary to neutralize threats and confront a regime they describe as destabilizing the region.
Critics counter that military escalation carries long-term risks.
Rapaport’s criticism, however, focused less on the merits of military strategy and more on what he characterized as silence during alleged regime abuses, followed by swift condemnation once the United States acted.
For many Americans watching the debate unfold, the question of consistency and where outrage is directed may matter as much as the policy itself.
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.