The Frumkeit Chase

R' Shneur Kotler

The defining characteristic of an Orthodox Jew is observance of Halacha. That’s it. Or at least that’s what it should be. Sadly, we live in a world today where that is no longer the definition. Now it is how “Frum” one is that defines them.

The word ‘Frum’ technically means religious. If someone is meticulous in their observance of Halacha, then he is religious. But what about the trappings of religiosity that are not actually Halacha? I believe that on the right wing, those things have become just as important - if not more important - than Halacha itself. That is what I would call Frumkeit.

In his sefer Alei Shur, Rav Shlomo Wolbe opposed Frumkeit. When doing something religious for show - one is more concerned with their image than with the actual religious purpose of what they are doing.

Today, in the non-Chasidic world of the right, the trappings of Frumkeit seem to have overtaken the importance of mitzvah observance itself, which is largely taken for granted.

What are these trappings? I would say they consist of lifestyle changes adopted in order to be considered as religious as are Jews to their right. Chassidic customs are the primary model for many of those changes, albeit modified enough to become a distinctly their own Yeshivish version of them.

Chassidim go to great lengths to distinguish themselves from the secular world. They try to be as insular as possible in order to avoid being influenced by a culture they view entirely antithetical to Jewish values. They have their own distinctive dress and customs.

They also have interpretations of Halacha that give them an entirely different appearance from the rest of the Jewish people. Long curly Peyos and long beards accompany their traditional long black frocks.

Another area in which they are extremely careful is avoiding even the slightest possibility of improper sexual thoughts. As such, they minimize interaction between the sexes as much as possible. Separate seating at banquets and weddings is absolute. Sometimes there are even separate buildings, or separate sides of the street for men and women in certain locations. Many Chasidic communities ban all pictures of women, no matter how modestly dressed they may be. Even headshots.

In their determination to avoid outside influences, Chasidim often reject secular education - especially at the college level - considering it a dangerous threat to one’s religious beliefs and practices.

Some Chassidic groups are so fearful of outside influences that they have created enclaves almost completely isolated from the outside world except when absolutely necessary. Such as for specialized medical care.

There was a time, not too long ago, when the non-Chassidic world lived by its own standards. I’m not talking about Modern Orthodox Jews. I’m talking about the Yeshiva world.

There was a time when they paid little attention to the Chassidic worldview. They had their own worldview, centered on following Halacha and studying Torah. They never looked to their right to see how “Frum” others were, fearing they might be viewed as less Frum by comparison. Somewhere in the 1970s, that began to change. They started paying attention to Chassidic stringencies and slowly began to emulate them.

I first noticed it when separate seating became the new standard in the Yeshiva world…

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. 

.

T(N)DS and the Iran Deal

Trump stands only for himself and his peculiar personal needs. He is a frightened, weak, dangerously confused old man burdened by personality disorders, dementia, and a series of physical ailments kept meticulously secret from the public.

I couldn’t resist. The above description of President Trump, offered by a highly intelligent and highly educated individual who comments here frequently, encapsulates what many call TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), an unfortunate term used to describe an extreme hatred of the man.

I would not say that people who harbor feelings like this are deranged. But I would concede that their assessment of every aspect of the president borders on the irrational—whether it is his character, his mental or physical health, his interactions with political or personal enemies, or his policies. Everything is described in exaggeratedly negative terms that they are convinced are absolutely true.

The reverse is also true. There are some people who consider the “D” in TDS to stand for devotion. They can see no wrong in his presidency. Everything he does is cast in a positive light, no matter how unethical or demonstrably wrong it may be. I am not going to list either the good or the bad, but anyone with an open mind can see what I see.

Thankfully, I do not suffer from this inaptly named TDS syndrome in either direction. I try to see things for what they are and evaluate them accordingly.

It’s true that the Trump presidency is ego-driven. I do not, however, believe that every decision he makes is self-serving. I think he genuinely believes that all of his decisions are good for the country—and even for the world—in the long run.

Which brings me to the president’s latest decision. He announced yesterday that Iran has agreed to the terms of a peace deal acceptable to the United States, one that will be signed later today (or in a few days, according to Iran). The Strait of Hormuz will be opened immediately thereafter to all traffic.

The reaction by Trump’s detractors and supporters was predictable. His detractors are saying that this deal amounts to a watered-down version of President Obama’s JCPOA agreement—the very agreement Trump tore up. Only now, they argue, it comes after a costly war, damage to the U.S. economy, the deaths of American soldiers, and a more dangerous Iran.

Some detractors (who also tend to dislike Prime Minister Netanyahu) accuse Israel of deliberately undermining the agreement through its continued bombing in Lebanon. This is a false narrative. Israel is not attacking Lebanon; it is attacking Hezbollah. Iran has reportedly tied any deal to Israel ceasing its attacks against Hezbollah. Netanyahu’s critics claim that continued military operations are the only way he can retain power.

This is the mantra one constantly hears from Trump and Netanyahu detractors who wish to drive a wedge between the two nations. That will not happen under the current administration.

Objective observers do not jump to these conclusions. The United States recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself against its mortal enemies, one of which is Hezbollah. No sane person would deny Israel that right. Thus far, the U.S. has not said a word about Israel’s daily attacks on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.

What about the deal itself…

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. 

No Regime Change in Iran

President canceling strikes on Iran - declaring a deal has been made (Phillips)

To say I am disappointed would be an understatement. (How many times have I used that phrase? Perhaps I have undermined its power through overuse. Nonetheless, if the shoe fits...)

I am disappointed that the president seems to have lost his resolve to solve an ongoing problem that has now lasted 47 years: the existence of a radical Islamist regime in Iran dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization and its replacement by a world dominated by its religious doctrine, using whatever means are necessary to achieve that goal.

This is a regime that has spread more terror throughout the world than any other in modern times, beginning with Israel. Iran has made no secret of its determination to destroy the Jewish state, whose very existence contradicts its theology.

They have been working diligently toward that end through their proxies, culminating in the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023.

The United States finally tried to do something about it a few months ago, aided by its ally Israel in a joint military campaign against Iran. The goal of that effort was - or should have been - regime change. The hope was that the damage inflicted by those attacks would weaken the regime to the point of submission. Or, at the very least, embolden an Iranian population that despises its rulers to rise up and finish the job themselves.

That didn’t happen.

Iran’s terrorist regime refuses to die despite the devastation it suffered. On the contrary, it is determined to survive regardless of the military or economic cost. It has found ways to inflict pain of its own by closing the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, thereby causing economic havoc in the United States and Europe. Its continued ability to fire missiles at American allies and Israel, as well as launch cheaply made drones against American aircraft, demonstrates its determination and ability to defy the United States and frustrate its objectives.

Sadly, the president has chosen to seek some sort of deal with Iran instead of defeating it. In my view, that is a huge mistake. As I have said many times, Iran cannot be trusted so long as its current leadership remains in power. Goals rooted in theology are not easily abandoned. They will remain ironclad.

Any agreement Iran signs will be temporary at best and will likely be violated, just as it violated the last major agreement it reached with the United States under a previous president.

So, as I have also said many times, there is only one solution to the Iran problem: regime change. There is no other way.

And that will require a full-scale war, including an invasion by sufficient forces to defeat the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp, capture or eliminate the remaining leadership, and install a government composed of Iranians who have desperately sought relief from their terrorist rulers for nearly half a century.

But it won’t happen…

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. 

Working Together Toward a Common Goal

The Shabbos Table (Aish)

Maybe it’s just wishful thinking. But it occurred to me that if Conservative Judaism is true to the ideal represented by its name—to conserve Judaism—then there may be a path for Orthodox and Conservative rabbis to work together toward that goal.

Let me be clear at the outset: Orthodox Judaism does not accept Conservative theology. The theological differences between our movements are profound, and from an Orthodox perspective they cannot simply be set aside. Nevertheless, it is possible that, despite those differences, there is common ground on a practical level. In theory, we both want the same thing: to preserve Jewish continuity and strengthen Jewish commitment among American Jews.

Conservative rabbis whose ideals begin with that premise do not object when one of their Baalei Teshuvah (newly observant) becomes “too frum”. Meaning that they gravitate toward Orthodoxy. I know, for example, that there are some Conservative rabbis who are so impressed with the work of NCSY that they encourage their youth to join. I am also aware of the fact that one of their most popular camps, Ramah, is observant to an extent that Conservative Judaism interprets it. And they have a reputation for inspiring their campers to appreciate an observant lifestyle.

We recently had a non-observant couple over for Shabbos—neighbors whom we invite frequently. The wife told us that she enjoys the Shabbos atmosphere she experiences in our home and that it reminds her of her camp days at Ramah, where the Shabbos atmosphere was similar. When camp ended and she returned home, there was no Shabbos table. And she missed it.

The idea of accepting Orthodoxy as an acceptable outcome for once non-observant Jews may not be true of every Conservative rabbi. Many of them might feel that their theology is the truth and refuse to encourage any potential baal teshuvah to join an Orthodox outreach group. I don’t know what proportion of Conservative rabbis feel that way.

But I do know that for many some of their more traditional leaders among them (e.g. Jack Wertheimer) lament the fact that there is not a greater emphasis on the “dos and don’ts” of Judaism that we call mitzvah observance.

I have always encouraged these truly sincere Conservative rabbis to come join us, since they have had little success in bringing their unobservant congregants closer to observance. They haven’t moved in that direction and probably resent my suggestion as condescending.

Which brings me back to the idea of working with the more idealistic Conservative rabbis toward the same goal of increased observance.

eJewish Philanthropy actually discusses many of the problems associated with this daunting task and offers some insights about the state of Jewish education in non-Orthodox circles, which, inter alia, suggests what needs to be done.

Some of those observations are shared with Orthodox education, such as the problem of teacher attrition due to notoriously low salaries, and the high cost of Jewish education—made worse by a declining birth rate. Fewer students mean less tuition revenue, which means less money available to pay teachers, even at current salary levels.

Then there are the challenges posed by modern technology that did not exist just a couple of decades ago, along with the need for new kinds of professionals to address those challenges. Except for the declining birth rate, Orthodox Jewish education shares many of these same difficulties.

While these are not insignificant challenges and require their own study, the common thread between us is the goal of perpetuating Judaism into the future through the restoration of observance that has been lost over generations – ever since Jews began immigrating to these shores in the late nineteenth century.

How we do that is the $64,000 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. 

The Basic 'Torah Study' Law

These images speak for themselves (Rationalist Judaism)

Torah study is an underlying value of a Jewish state. Unfortunately, this view is not shared by all of Israel’s Jewish inhabitants. There are some on the far left who reject that premise entirely. Others may see some value in it, but certainly do not follow all of its laws. In fact, there are cities in Israel that promote values that are anathema to the Torah. How many people know, for example, that Tel Aviv is considered one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world? That is hardly a Torah value.

It is with that in mind that I bring up an article in Arutz Sheva, which reported the following:

“Knesset plenum approves Basic Law: Torah Study in preliminary reading, recognizing Torah study as an underlying value of the State.”

It passed by a vote of 56–43.

It is sad that a Jewish state needs to pass a law recognizing the study of what makes it Jewish. It would be like trying to define American democracy without any knowledge of the Constitution. But as noted, many Jews do not see the Torah as having much relevance to contemporary values and do not study its laws at all, considering them archaic and irrelevant. So I am, in fact, in favor of passing such a law. I would even require every school - religious or secular - to include Torah study as part of its curriculum through high school.

That being said, there is more to this law than merely recognizing Torah study as an official value of the State of Israel. The bill would also serve to exempt anyone from military service if they study Torah full time, considering those students to be on par with those serving in the military in terms of their contribution to the welfare of the country. They would therefore be compensated accordingly.

That Torah study is important to the welfare of the country should not be in dispute. But comparing it to military service does a great disservice to those in the military whose sacrifices are far beyond those made by individuals who study Torah full time. It is insulting in the extreme to even suggest such a comparison.

This is not, God forbid, meant to denigrate Torah study or even to suggest that its value is subordinate to that of military service. It is simply to point out that compensation for contributions to society should be commensurate with the sacrifices being made.

Only fools would say that the IDF has no value, or that Torah study alone protects the Jewish people. Anyone with a conscience - including Charedim - must recognize the enormous value of those on the front lines who place themselves in harm’s way on a daily basis.

What the authors of this bill fail to recognize (or admit) is the vast difference between the sacrifices involved in full-time Torah study and those made by soldiers on the battlefield, where people are killed or seriously injured all the time. It is that lack of recognition that upsets not only secular Israelis but even many religious Israelis…

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.  

Hating Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau.

Melanie Phillips is someone whose views resonate with me. Her unabashedly pro-Israel position is based on reality rather than politics—a reality she exposes with facts rather than the predisposed anti-Israel version of reality that much of the mainstream media presents to the world. Her views on the State of Israel and antisemitism are virtually identical to mine. The only difference is that she is a far better communicator.

And she did it again - writing about a Jewish leader who has become very popular to hate—from either side of the political aisle, especially as it pertains to how the media views him. There is no love lost for Israel’s longest-serving and arguably most consequential prime minister in its nearly 80-year history.

Benjamin Netanyahu has become the fall guy for anything that goes wrong in Israel or affects the Jewish people. The mere mention of his name in almost any context often brings out derision from many well-intentioned Jews. That reaction is frequently based not on the actual facts, but on the way those facts are reported by the mainstream media.

To take one prominent example of this phenomenon, consider the accusations made against Netanyahu regarding the war in Gaza. The BBC and The New York Times—two of the world’s most widely respected news organizations—consistently paint Netanyahu’s Israel in Nazi-like terms. The rest of the mainstream media often treats that characterization as undisputed fact. That, of course, has an outsized impact on public opinion.

Netanyahu has been accused of ordering the IDF to disregard Palestinian casualties in pursuit of Hamas terrorists. Media reliance on Hamas casualty figures—emphasizing large numbers of women and children without independent verification—becomes the only “truth” that is reported. It is a “truth” that does not differentiate between terrorists and innocent civilians. It is a “truth” that often ignores Hamas’s deliberate strategy of embedding itself among the most vulnerable civilian populations in order to maximize civilian casualties.

That “truth,” repeated on the nightly news for months at a time, makes accusations of genocide against Netanyahu easy to believe. Absent from much of that reporting is the fact that Netanyahu’s Israel is the only country in the history of warfare that routinely warned civilians of impending attacks and gave them time to evacuate. Yet images of destruction, coupled with a relentlessly negative narrative, made the accusations seem legitimate.

This kind of hostility extends far beyond the prejudiced narratives promoted by much of the media and influences many well-intentioned Jews.

Ms. Phillips puts it all into proper perspective, asking in the subtitle of her Jewish Chronicle article:

“Are the ‘If Only Netanyahu’ crowd really so blinded by hatred?”

I am sorry to say that I think the answer is yes…

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.  

Is the US a Paper Tiger?

The president and the ayatollah: Who’s really winning the war?

There must be regime change. There is no other alternative. Whatever it takes.

This has always been my view. Long before the U.S. targeted Iran with its most recent military action in late February. When the US and Israel struck, I thought – or at least hoped that this was the beginning of the end of that terrorist regime.

The thinking then was that Iran’s murder of tens of thousands of its own citizens, combined with the degradation of its military capabilities, would generate an internal revolt that would overthrow their government and restore the freedom its citizens lost when Iranian Islamists forcibly took over the country 47 years ago and transformed it into an Islamist dictatorship. A regime that ruled through iron-fisted terror rooted in a theology that sees the murder of protesters as a religious obligation, since as they saw it - those protesters pining for freedom represented a rebellion against God!

While it is difficult to imagine the current Iranian leadership surviving the military devastation at the hands of the US and Israeli military, they have in fact more than survived. if Iran is not brought to complete surrender, and allowed to survive through some negotiated settlement, then it will have effectively won. They will surely continue to pursue their goals, and any agreement they make will not be worth the paper it is written on.

Furthermore, if allowed to survive, Iran will retain the ability to cause havoc whenever it chooses. It has already demonstrated that despite its military setbacks, it can still threaten international commerce. In effect, the Strait of Hormuz is their atomic bomb - an economic weapon that can be deployed at a moment’s notice. Its ability to disrupt shipping has inflicted economic hardship on much of the civilized world.

If the president ultimately makes some kind of deal with these terrorists, then his critics will have been proven right. He will have accomplished little. Even if a new agreement appears better than the one reached by President Obama, which is at best - debatable , it will be a major victory for Iran.

Any other regime that had suffered Iran’s level of military devastation might have conceded defeat. But not a regime whose motivation is fundamentally theological. The only way it will surrender is if its terrorist military arm, the IRGC, is completely destroyed. That will require a major U.S. military invasion.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the danger Iran poses to the civilized world justifies such action, even though it would almost certainly result in American casualties.

I do not say this lightly. Every human being killed in war is a tragedy of immense proportion. In a sense, an entire world dies with each individual death. The reverberations spread far beyond the immediate family and strike at the core of the collective American conscience.

America’s appetite for war soured long ago after more than 40,000 American soldiers died trying to preserve democracy in South Vietnam and prevent the spread of communism throughout Southeast Asia. After years of fighting, a peace agreement was reached, U.S. troops withdrew, and South Vietnam fell shortly thereafter. The country was reunified under communist rule.

Subsequent wars have often produced similarly disappointing outcomes. It is therefore easy to understand why the American people are deeply skeptical of military intervention. The idea of losing even one soldier in a conflict that achieves little if anything is something no American parent wants to contemplate.

Many Americans look at the world before the attack on Iran and remember relative peace and a thriving economy. They see those conditions now threatened and therefore prefer that President Trump make whatever deal is necessary to restore stability.

What many Americans fail to understand, however, is the existential danger Iran poses to our own security if it is allowed at any time in the future - to enrich uranium toward weapons-grade levels. They do not fully appreciate that Iran’s theological goals are real, nor that its support for terrorist proxies was part of a broader strategy to advance those goals. If the regime survives, those ambitions will survive with it.

Without understanding that danger, I too would oppose further military action.

But there is another aspect of this issue that is rarely discussed…

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.  

A Message from HaRav Moshe Hillel Hirsch

HaRav Moshe Hillel Hirsch (YWN)

I was sent a video this morning of a recent address given in Hebrew by Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch. A Rosh Yeshiva in Israel who is considered by much of the Charedi world to be one of the two Gedolei HaDor. The video included a rough English (Yinglish?) translation of his remarks, which follows – interspersed in some cases with my translation:

“We Are in the Middle of a War”

The Rosh Yeshiva opened his remarks regarding what he described as the r’difas lomdei Torah (the mortal pursuit of those who study Torah):

“There is a very difficult matzav (situation) today. We are in a war, mamash (actually) a war. This is a very difficult inyan (subject) for the bochurim, and the bochurim have to understand that we are in a war.

In a time of war, sometimes there are things that are difficult, and there has to be mesirus nefesh (self sacfrfice) for the war. It cannot be that everything continues exactly as usual when there is a war.”

“I am not referring to the war with Iran. I am referring to the war between us and those from within who are fighting against us.

This is what we have to be machnis (internalize): There is no other way—only through the Ribbono Shel Olam.

And there is a klal. The Gemara in Shabbos says that HaKadosh Baruch Hu says: ‘If I see that they want Me, then I want them; if they do not want Me, I do not want them.’ Middah k’neged middah” (measure for measure).

In strong words rarely heard from a mainstream rabbinic leader, HaRav Hirsch added:

“It is muttar to be mechaven in ‘V’lamalshinim al tehi tikvah... v’chol haresha k’rega toveid.’ If all of Klal Yisrael would be mechaven in this, HaKadosh Baruch Hu would do what needs to be done.”

The ‘Yinglish’ in this last paragraph can be translated as follows:

It is permissible to concentrate when reciting the words (in Shemoneh Esrei) of “And for informers (slanderers) let there be no hope... “all wickedness should perish in an instant,”. If all of Israel would concentrate on this, God would do what needs to be done.

I have to apologize for my previous mild interpretation of how mainstream Charedi leaders feel about violent opposition to government attempts to draft Charedim. I’m not so sure they are entirely opposed to them.

While Rav Hirsch did not explicitly endorse violence here, he may as well have. 

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.  

 

60 Minutes and Anti-Israel Bias

Scott Pelley - late of 60 Minutes (WSJ)

Scott Pelley seems like a truly nice guy. An honest reporter who doesn’t seem to inject his personal biases into his reporting. Biases that, I’m sure, tend heavily toward the left. I am sorry to see him go.

Yesterday, the mainstream media reported that he was fired from his job at the mega-popular TV news magazine, 60 Minutes.

What precipitated his departure was a heated confrontation at a staff meeting with 60 Minutes’ newly installed executive producer, Nick Bilton.

Apparently, Pelley came into that meeting with ‘both guns blazing’! Upset about the departures of the show’s previous producer, Tanya Simon, and two of its regular correspondents, Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega.

The issue at hand is the accusation that CBS’s new management has tried to interfere with the journalistic integrity and freedom of expression of its reporters by forcing them to insert “lies” into their reports. Pelley argued that their stories should be left exactly as they reported them in their supposedly pristine objectivity.

I had to laugh when I read those comments, which were made by both Pelley and Vega. If I had to guess, I would say that Pelley was parroting what Vega had claimed, reflecting her own bias. A bias that became overtly obvious about a year ago in a 60 Minutes segment that was so slanted against Israel that even a child would have noticed it.

This is what I said about it at the time:

Vega interviewed some disgruntled State Department employees who had resigned over what they claimed was the U.S. government’s mishandling of the “atrocities” being committed by the Netanyahu government in its war with Hamas. The report made it seem as though these individuals possessed inside information and irrefutable evidence of Israeli atrocities, which they described in considerable detail.

None of this was verified by independent sources. And it was certainly far from established fact. Yet, as is often 60 Minutes’ habit, the report made it sound as though its version of events was the only truth. They had absolutely no problem ignoring Israel’s side of the story—which, in my view, was probably much closer to reality than what 60 Minutes was peddling.

This is what they consider balanced reporting.

What could be less balanced than that hit piece? This is the kind of reporting that Vega doesn’t want any ‘lies’ inserted into. By ‘lies’ she means facts and perspectives that challenge her preconceived notion of the truth.

To show that this wasn’t an isolated incident of anti-Israel bias, there was the harsh rebuke by the then CBS new director of reporter Tony Dokoupil who - during an interview - dared to challenge the author of an anti-Israel book by asking why he reported only the Palestinian perspective while ignoring the Israeli one. That rebuke generated honest pushback from some of CBS’s own correspondents—an unusual event given the sensitivity surrounding job security in network news.

At about that same time, a politically conservative, pro-Israel news executive, Bari Weiss, was brought in to help reshape the news division. She has since elevated Dokoupil to the nightly news anchor and has been involved in broader efforts to overhaul the network’s news operation and change its leftward tilt.

I never thought I would see the day when 60 Minutes would face serious internal challenges to its leftist editorial culture and attempt to become a more politically balanced news magazine.

I, for one, am more than happy to see Vega go. I don’t know much about Alfonsi’s views, but I can guess based on criticism she received over one of her own anti-Trump segments.

I wish I could say, ‘Problem solved’. All will be well, and future broadcasts will be more balanced - if not more favorable to Israel. Sadly, that will very likely not be the case…

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.  

A Righteous War that Must be Fought

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

Iran’s attack against Kuwait this morning made me angry - and more convinced than ever that the United States and Israel should resume full-scale military action against Iran.

I don’t know what the president is waiting for. What will it take for him to finish off a regime that has proven itself to be one of the most radical and dangerous states of the modern era? A regime whose primary target is the very country he swore to protect and defend from enemies, foreign and domestic. A regime whose co-primary target is Israel, currently America’s most important ally in the region if not the world.

The fact that Iran has brutally repressed and killed tens of thousands of its own people for the “crime” of seeking freedom is reason enough to resume the war. Equally compelling is Iran’s openly declared goal of ‘restoring’ Islamic rule to the Holy Land, even if that means exterminating its over 7 million Jewish inhabitants.

Another compelling reason is Iran’s determination to dominate the Middle East through a pan-Islamic vision led by its Shiite ideology. In pursuit of that goal, it has shown a willingness to attack neighboring Muslim countries. Today’s ballistic missile strike that reportedly hit an airport terminal in Kuwait is only the latest example. The regime appears to have little regard for the lives of fellow Muslims when they stand in the way of its ambitions.

Iran has also demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice its own supporters if doing so advances its cause. The regime glorifies martyrdom, whether voluntary or not, whenever it serves its ideological objectives.

Yet another reason for resuming the war is Iran’s relentless drive to acquire the means to achieve these goals. By now, the entire world knows of its determination to become a nuclear power. Not to mention its efforts to develop increasingly sophisticated ballistic missile systems capable of reaching targets as far as the US. Iran has already demonstrated missile capabilities that can reach Europe. And its missile arsenal appears far larger than previously believed. Those missiles could eventually serve as delivery systems for nuclear warheads.

Nor should it be lost on the president that virtually every Iranian expatriate who fled the regime understands exactly what it is and has urged the United States and its ally Israel to finish the job.

I am not a military strategist. But this much seems clear: Iran’s military has suffered devastating losses, and its command structure has been severely weakened. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is little more that another terrorist group similar to Hamas and Hezbollah. Only much larger. And seems to be operating independently of any leadership. Driven by a level of religious fervor that makes them almost impossible to defeat without reducing them to an underground terrorist cell.

Iran’s new supreme leader has yet to make an appearance. Whether he remains fully capable of exercising authority is an open question. Despite their claims to the contrary.

It does not help that many Democrats and their allies in the media continue repeating Iran’s claims that it has somehow won the war and that America and its allies are worse off now than before the conflict began. Some even argue that remaining in the Obama-era nuclear agreement (JCPOA) would have produced a better outcome.

I disagree…

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.