Crocodile Tears for Iran

I turned on the television. I rarely watch the news anymore, but this was the first thing that appeared on my YouTube feed, so I decided to watch it:
"Chris Murthy: Brutally Tears Into Trump's 'Humiliating' Deal With Iran — Then Bernie Moreno Responds."
Once again, American politicians are unleashing harsh criticism over yet another military adventure. But why do these voices become audible only after the missiles have already been launched and the decisions have already been made?
I would translate the headline "Brutally Tears Into Trump's Deal With Iran" not literally, but metaphorically: "Crocodile Tears Over Trump's Deal With Iran." Because this is not about preventing a conflict; it is about political statements made after the events have already taken place.
No one seriously demands cuts in military spending in order to provide affordable healthcare, free dental care, paid parental leave, or solutions to pressing social problems. Presidents change, political parties blame one another, yet the fundamental priorities remain the same.
That is why all this passionate criticism resembles a football match: the teams argue with one another while the spectators are expected to believe that changing the players will somehow change the game itself. Meanwhile, billions continue to be spent on wars and weapons, while ordinary people are increasingly left alone with their own problems.