As debate continues over the Trump administration’s handling of Iran, comedian and political commentator Bill Maher argued Friday that former President Barack Obama’s approach to the issue has been vindicated, sharply criticizing President Donald Trump’s strategy during a discussion on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher.
Maher devoted a significant portion of his program to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Iran conflict and the administration’s recent agreement with Tehran, ultimately concluding that Obama’s diplomatic efforts had proven more effective than Trump’s current approach.
Friday’s episode featured an interview with Sam Levinson, the creator, writer, and director of HBO’s Euphoria. Later, Maher was joined by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who serves on both the House Oversight and House Armed Services Committees, and Jonathan Martin, senior political columnist for Politico and host of the podcast On The Road with Jonathan Martin.
During the panel discussion, Maher reflected on previous debates surrounding Obama’s Iran policy and suggested that events have validated the former president’s position.
“You know who gets to crow about Iran? Obama,” Maher said. “He does.”
Maher also referenced former President Joe Biden, noting criticism Biden faced over the withdrawal from Afghanistan while acknowledging that “at least he got out of Afghanistan.”
Turning back to Iran, Maher said he had often defended Obama’s efforts when discussing the issue with Trump. While acknowledging that there were concerns about whether Iran may have been complying with agreements at the time, Maher argued that diplomacy still represented the least risky option available.
“It turned out Obama was right,” Maher said. “There really is no other better way to do this. It’s always the best of the worst possible options.”
Jonathan Martin expanded on those concerns by arguing that Iran now possesses significant leverage through its ability to disrupt shipping traffic through a key maritime chokepoint.
Martin suggested that future American presidents could face political and economic pressure if Iran chose to close the passage and drive up energy prices. He argued that such a move could become a recurring challenge whenever tensions escalate.
Rep. Khanna also defended Obama’s approach and used the discussion to advocate for diplomacy over military action.
Khanna recalled attending an event at the Obama Presidential Center and said Americans should learn that “sometimes tough diplomacy is better than chest-thumping brute force.”
The California congressman contrasted Obama’s nuclear agreement with the current arrangement, arguing that Obama secured the removal of most of Iran’s enriched uranium and obtained a United Nations Security Council resolution that included inspectors. Khanna contended that the current agreement does not provide the same level of enforcement.
According to Khanna, the result is a weaker deal than the one negotiated during the Obama administration.
Maher agreed with that assessment without hesitation.
“It is,” Maher said. “Oh absolutely, no, it’s terrible.”
Martin also expressed skepticism about Iran’s willingness to fully comply with nuclear restrictions, suggesting that concerns about Iranian behavior remain unresolved despite any agreement.
The discussion highlighted ongoing disagreements over how best to handle Iran, with supporters of diplomacy arguing that negotiated settlements, while imperfect, may offer a more sustainable path than military confrontation. Even among critics and supporters alike, the panel reflected a broader concern that conflicts in the region continue to leave policymakers choosing between difficult and often unsatisfying options.
[READ MORE: Judge Allows Challenges to Trump Election Order to Move Forward Ahead of Midterms]
