Thursday night on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Show, the host was reminded that he once said war with Iran would “destroy Trump’s presidency.” Despite the two attacks on oil tankers perpetrated by that nation, Carlson remained consistent, nodding his head in agreement with guest Mark Hannah’s reminder.

Who else is interested in destroying Trump’s presidency? Most of the media, virtually every Democrat, and half the GOP is probably an accurate answer, but in this context, two names stand out: current Senate Select Committee on Intelligence member Dianne Feinstein, and former Secretary of State John Kerry.

Last month, despite escalating tensions with Iran, Feinstein had dinner with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. She was also caught talking with Zarif on the phone during May as well. Feinstein’s office insisted the dinner was arranged “in consultation with the State Department.” The State Department said it wasn’t so. Last September, Kerry admitted he’d also had several meeting with Iranian officials.

The common thread? Feinstein “is one of the leading proponents of reinstituting the Obama administration’s failed Iran deal,” writes columnist David Harsanyi. “Only recently the California senator blamed the Trump ­administration, rather than Iranian mullahs who’ve spent years taking Americans hostages and threatening our friends, of ‘increasing the chances of an unnecessary military conflict with Iran.’”

Kerry? “Former Secretary of State John Kerry admitted Wednesday that he’s met with top Iranian officials in hopes of salvaging the scrapped nuclear deal — as he slammed the Trump administration for trying to further ‘isolate’ Iran,” reported Lia Eustachewich.

An effort by Democrats to back-stab a Republican administration by consorting with America’s enemies is nothing new. A 1983 KGB document revealed that KGB chief Victor Chebrikov relayed an offer presented to the Soviet leaders by Sen. Ted Kennedy, noting the senator was “very troubled” by U.S.-Soviet relations he attributed to “Reagan’s belligerence.” Chebrikov explained that Kennedy was eager to “counter the militaristic policies” of Reagan and to undermine his prospects for reelection in 1984.

As stated above, both Feinstein and Kerry were reportedly attempting to salvage the disastrous Iranian deal that even Barack Obama himself admitted will not stop them for obtaining a nuclear weapon, and Kerry admitted would help fund terrorism.

What if the Iranian deal is not what Kerry and Feinstein were talking about? What if both of these duplicitous hacks were helping Iran contrive a strategy of orchestrated belligerence designed to provoke Trump into escalating confrontations with the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror, precisely to put his presidency in jeopardy?

It’s certainly worth finding out. Feinstein and Kerry should be issued subpoenas by the same Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and questioned in a public forum, not behind closed doors.

In a nation that has endured more than two years of “Russian collusion!” that never happened, perhaps it’s time to see what documented collusion — and possible treason — really looks like.