The problem with polls is that they often reflect the way
the questions are asked. Statistics, too, can obscure important truths by
failing to probe the reasons behind the answers. Which can vary widely among
those being polled.
Several recent polls suggest that, by margins approaching
60%, Americans disapprove of the president’s policy toward the war in Iran.
That appears to align with the Democratic narrative that this is a war of
choice with no clearly defined objective, one that has only made matters worse
by strengthening Iran’s hardline Islamist regime. They argue that Iran now
appears to exercise permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz, and that if it
is ever reopened, they will charge fees for passage. Which was free before the
war.
And that even if a new nuclear agreement is eventually
reached, that was already the case under Obama that Trump tore up! Thus the
region will be less stable than before after a costly, counterproductive war.
But here’s what many of those poll reports fail to mention.
Most Americans actually agree with the president’s stated
objectives: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, stopping the
development of long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United
States, and ending its support for terrorist proxies. Where they disagree is
over whether this war will achieve those goals.
I count myself among those skeptics. I, too, question
whether the current strategy will accomplish its stated objectives. But I
do not share the reasons offered by the war’s Democratic critics.
They claim the war has no stated objective. Really? The
president has repeatedly declared that its purpose is to prevent Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons.
They call it a war of choice. Should the United States have
waited until Iran possessed a fully operational nuclear arsenal and chose to
use it or threaten to use it? That is not a risk any responsible government
should take.
History offers a sobering lesson. Neville Chamberlain
believed diplomacy could satisfy Hitler’s ambitions. Instead, appeasement
emboldened him and contributed to the deadliest war in human history. Diplomacy
with expansionist tyrannies rarely succeeds. It is even less likely to succeed
when those tyrannies are driven by religious fanaticism and believe they are
carrying out a divine mission.
That is why I find the president’s continued pursuit of
negotiations with Iran so perplexing and disappointing. He still appears to
believe he can strike a deal with a regime whose ideological goals are
fundamentally incompatible with any lasting agreement.
Why he continues to believe that is an open question.
To continue reading - and/or to comment on this
post - click on this link: substack. You must
subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.
