Feminisim, Religion, and the IDF

Women of the IDF (Reuters)

No one is more upset about the Charedi refusal to join the IDF than I am. I think I’ve spilled more (virtual) ink on the subject than just about anyone. The reasons for that are well known. I have spelled them out many times and am not going to do so again here. But there is one impediment to their service that gives them just cause to object.

Not that the requirement for service during an existential war doesn’t override it. It does. Nevertheless, it presents a legitimate concern for religious soldiers in the abstract. One that, in theory, should not exist, but has become a reality in service to a 21^st century version of feminism that does not recognize gender differences.

This version of feminism sees equality between the sexes as the ultimate cultural good. One that overrides everything else, including - and of late, especially - religious sensitivities.

If there is one institutional aspect of Israeli society that looks at religious sensitivities with disdain, if not outright contempt, it is the judiciary. It views those sensitivities as an impediment to social progress as defined by progressive movements such as modern day feminism.

So that when a conflict arises between the two, there is no question about which values are deemed to have the moral high ground. Equality of the sexes wins every time. That is what drives the courts to require compliance with policies that further that goal. Regardless of religious concerns, about which they care very little.

So when the Charedi world accuses Israel’s judiciary of being anti-Torah, they are not entirely off base. The most recent example is the Israeli Supreme Court’s requirement that men and women be integrated into the IDF’s armored corps units, placing them together in the confined quarters of tanks and other armored vehicles. All in service to equality between the sexes.

If one does not value religious sensitivities, this policy makes perfect sense. But if one is sensitive to issues of modesty between men and women and wishes to avoid situations where they may be confined together in close quarters for extended periods of time, it is an outrageous demand. One that the IDF absolutely does not require for military purposes. The only reason the judiciary insists upon its implementation is in service to an ideological ideal that many religious servicemen view as anathema.

Nor are religious soldiers Primadonnas seeking easy assignments. Quite the contrary. Some of the bravest and most elite soldiers in the IDF come from the Religious Zionist community. Particularly from Hesder yeshivas, whose students often volunteer in groups for the most dangerous combat missions. These are the very soldiers upon whom the judiciary wishes to impose its feminist values. It is almost as though they care more about feminism than they do about protecting their country from its mortal enemies!

Even if one can devise ways to technically avoid violations of the halachos of modesty, doing so becomes extremely difficult if not impossible during the long stretches of time male and female soldiers must so often spend together.

For the judiciary to place soldiers in uncomfortable and potentially compromising situations for no purpose other than social engineering is the height of arrogance…

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 Profile in Courage

Charedim ‘Pushed to the Limit’ (Mishpacha)

My heart bleeds borscht.

That’s pretty much how I feel about the “terrible pain” Charedim in Israel are going through. This is not to say they aren’t really feeling any pain. Of course they are. The decision by their leadership to defy the draft law has indeed caused them unprecedented hardship. Whereas in the past much of their way of life was subsidized by the government, that support has now been removed because of their refusal to serve in any capacity in Israel’s armed services.

This has always been a sore subject with me. But it has never taken on the urgency that it does right now, when the rest of Israel is subject to the draft during a time of war. The army of the Jewish people is severely understaffed, forcing those who do serve to spend extraordinarily long tours of duty. This, in turn, causes great hardship to their families and careers, if not destroying them completely. Add to that the loss of life and limb, along with lifelong PTSD suffered by many soldiers, and forgive me if I don’t view the suffering Charedim are experiencing right now with much sympathy.

Nothing new here. Nor is it surprising that a magazine like Mishpacha would take up their cause, parroting accusations that this is a war on Torah. Or similarly absurd claims that have little basis in fact.

Mishpacha’s latest issue doubles down on this attitude in an article titled, Pushed to the Limit. Therein it presents “tales of woe experienced by bochurim, avreichim, and their wives because of the judiciary’s campaign against Charedi bnei Torah”.

This is how Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein describes it. What makes Rabbi Adlerstein’s Cross-Currents article unique - is the outrage I sensed underlying it. And of course, I could not agree more.

Mishpacha’s article tells us of the difficulties and sacrifices these Charedi families are going through, but it misses a crucial point.

Here is how he put it:

“Mercifully, no one tried comparing their difficulties and sacrifices with those of soldiers and their families, which would have been obscene.” (emphasis mine)

“Yet failure to make the comparison is also offensive, and contravenes the halacha of nosei b’ol Chavero (Sharing the burden of one’s fellow).”

This is precisely the problem. Their refusal to recognize the far greater sacrifices made by those who are actually participating in the defense of the Jewish people - and the sacrifices being made by their families - leaves the impression that they are the ones suffering the most. That no one suffers as much as they do, It’s no wonder, therefore, that Rabbi Adlerstein seems so outraged by this article…

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. 

Vance and Israel - Friend or Foe?

Vice President J.D. Vance as a recent press conference

“You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.”

“Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. And he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower.”

“If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”

“The problem for Israel is not Donald J. Trump. And anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”

“There is a real backlash to a consensus view in American foreign policy.”

These are some of the actual statements made by Vice President J.D. Vance about - or related to Israel.

During the war there was effusive praise of Israel as America’s partner in its war with Iran by key American leaders. Most notably by the president, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine, and Admiral Brad Cooper, the operational commander overseeing the actual war effort through CENTCOM.

I don’t recall the vice president saying a word about Israel in that vein at the time. The only thing I keep hearing from him are comments that smack of an underlying antipathy toward Israel. Tempered only by his loyalty to the president.

It’s hard to know exactly what’s in his heart. But I’m not feeling very good about it.

J.D. Vance is literally a heartbeat away from the presidency. He is also very likely to be the Republican nominee for president in 2028. Once in the Oval Office, his true sympathies toward Israel will surely emerge. Based on his comments thus far - and the lack of the comments he should have made - I am not very confident about America’s support for Israel going forward under a Vance administration.

If Vance is the Republican candidate, I am hard-pressed to believe that the Democratic nominee will be any more sympathetic to Israel. Most of them have turned opposition to AIPAC - the advocacy group whose sole purpose is strengthening the relationship between the United States and Israel - into a virtue. They treat support for AIPAC as unethical; as though advocating a strong U.S.-Israel relationship is anti-American.

And it isn’t only radical progressives. It is mainstream Democrats who have a real shot at the nomination. Such as J.B. Pritzker and Gavin Newsom. There aren’t too many Democrats like John Fetterman, whose moral compass is still intact. Most Democrats have jumped onto the now-popular anti-AIPAC bandwagon as a necessary credential for having a realistic shot at being a nominee for any position in government.

So unless some sort of miracle occurs between now and the fall of 2028 - and these politicians see the light and have their moral compasses reset - I’m not feeling very confident about Israel’s future relationship with the United States.

I realize, of course, that many angry Netanyahu critics place the entire blame for this turn of events on him. The belief is that by cozying up to Republicans and dishonoring their ‘saintly’ Barack Obama, Netanyahu somehow caused the loss of American support. This criticism continues for a variety of reasons, none of which I believe have any bearing on the current decline in American support for Israel.

Netanyahu’s critics often employ the same arguments made by anti-Israel activists. They blame his aggressive prosecution of the Gaza war for the deaths of ‘too many’ innocent Palestinians. They criticize his aggressive attacks in Lebanon. Some even claim that Netanyahu’s real motive in confronting Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon is solely to retain power and improve his chances in the upcoming election.

I don’t buy any of it…

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 Evolution of 21st Century Antisemitism

Protestors at a college campus one year after the October 7th massacre (ADL)

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us...”

Although I am not particularly fond of quoting the words of an antisemite, these words from Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities, published in 1859 pretty much describe how I sometimes feel these days.

In just about every sphere of human experience, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that we, the Jewish people, live in an unprecedented time of freedom and prosperity. There are so many indications of that fact that I probably could not do them justice by trying to enumerate them all. I will therefore discuss one area of particular importance to us: how the Jewish people are treated in this country.

Never have the Jewish people enjoyed a freer or more prosperous existence during the more than 2,000 years of the Diaspora than we have in America. This is still true today, regardless of which party is in power. And yet antisemitism has not been this prevalent since pre-Holocaust times. A situation derived, at least in part, from the respect accorded to academia.

It is from those circles that antisemitism has been flowing profusely, often under the guise of anti-Zionism. That has not gone unnoticed by people of lesser education who may have always harbored such feelings but kept them buried because of America’s increasing intolerance for racism and bigotry of any kind. But now that academia has unofficially given its imprimatur to antisemitism as it pertains to Israel, it has opened a much broader landscape for it. One that people outside academia can easily latch onto. The floodgates have now been opened. Both the left and the right can justify their hatred by pointing to academia’s hostility toward Israel.

The strange thing about all this is that much of academia’s antisemitism is rooted in the good intentions that is the hallmark of liberalism. In fact, many liberals fought for us during the Holocaust. Many liberals helped create an environment that enabled Jews to emigrate from antisemitic regimes that had persecuted us for centuries. Many liberals advocated American opposition to Nazism and later supported the establishment of a Jewish state.

Liberalism is, in many ways, what defines the character of this country. It is why the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s prevailed. A liberal sees injustice and is determined to fight it, determined to defend individuals or groups perceived as being persecuted for no reason other than prejudice, whether religious, ethnic, or racial. Today, there is no greater bastion of liberalism than academia.

This was not always 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 Victory for Iran

Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) lives to fight another day

I don’t even know where to begin. I do not believe I have ever been as disappointed with the President as I am right now. And that’s putting it mildly.

The Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran is beyond terrible. It almost justifies what many Democrats have been claiming: that we are worse off now than we were before we attacked Iran. While that is not yet true, we may end up there if the President continues down this path.

What makes this so shocking is that this is the same President who finally had the courage to do what should have been done 47 years ago. Together with Israel, the United States used its overwhelming military superiority to cripple Iran’s military, eliminate much of its leadership, destroy most of its air force and navy, achieve complete air superiority, and significantly reduce its ballistic missile arsenal.

When Iran responded by closing the Strait of Hormuz and driving up fuel prices worldwide, the United States quickly tightened the screws, restricting Iran’s access to shipping. As the President likes to say, “We had all the cards.” Iran was on the ropes, despite its claims of victory.

We also had the moral high ground. Iran remains the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, arming and funding proxies dedicated to attacking Israel, arguably America’s closest ally. Even worse, the regime has brutalized its own people, killing tens of thousands of protesters and ruling through fear and religious tyranny. That is why Iranian expatriates around the world overwhelmingly applauded the actions of both the United States and Israel when the war began.

The President was also right to reject Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement. Not only was Iran later found violating its terms, but even if it had complied, the deal would merely have delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions while allowing it to continue funding terrorist proxies and expanding its missile arsenal. It paved the way to a nuclear weapon rather than preventing one.

As far as I am concerned, regime change was always the right goal.

Although Iran emerged from the war badly weakened, it survived. It retained enough missiles and drones to inflict damage and succeeded in disrupting the global economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. The president responded with a blockade of its own – crippling Iran’s economy even further. That left us in a stalemate. Meanwhile Iran remains committed to its radical Islamist goals and shows no sign of changing course.

The logical solution was to finish the job. A full-scale assault against a severely weakened Iran would have been costly, but it could have ended the regime, liberated the Iranian people, cut off support for terrorist proxies, and made the world a much safer place.

But that is not what happened.

Instead, the president capitulated. There are no meaningful guarantees regarding Iran’s nuclear program, and any future agreement is unlikely to be much better than Obama’s deal.

Most astonishing of all, the President reportedly argued that it would be unfair to deny Iran ballistic missiles because neighboring countries possess them.

Unfair?

Denying ballistic missiles to a regime that has spent 47 years chanting “Death to America” is not unfair. It is common sense. When a country openly seeks your destruction, you do not provide it with the means to achieve that goal.

Nor does the Memorandum address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism…

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. 

Gay Pride and Orthodox Judaism

Gay Pride celebration in Washington (AARP)

One of the most difficult subjects for me to discuss is the issue of homosexuality and its intersection with Judaism.

Although I have discussed this topic in a variety of different contexts, the problem for me is always the same: how to reconcile the Torah’s severe prohibition of homosexual sex with modern society’s celebration of it.

Please do not misunderstand. The Torah’s prohibition overrides societal acceptance. But the fact that society no longer considers homosexual sex to be aberrational and instead views it as no different from heterosexual sex makes it difficult for me to express what I believe the Jewish attitude should be, based on both the Torah and what we now believe is the irreversible nature of human sexual attraction.

I have explained my Torah-based views on this subject many times. Briefly, they are as follows: We cannot judge people by whom they are attracted to, only by what they do about it. If a man is sexually attracted to another man and does not act on that attraction in ways prohibited by Halacha, he should be treated like anyone else. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., it is the content of their character that matters. What they might do in the privacy of their own home is nobody’s business but God’s.

That people like this are still persecuted in society is tragic.

That said, societal acceptance does not accord with the halachic view. Society asks us to celebrate people precisely because they are homosexual. I understand the motive behind this. It is a reaction to a not-too-distant past in which homosexuals were treated with derision and contempt, sometimes even violence.

When being gay was still considered abnormal, many gay people hid their homosexuality. If they were discovered, it could cost them their jobs and social standing. They were often treated as pariahs, ridiculed and ostracized. There was little compassion for their struggles. They frequently became outcasts.

That is why many homosexuals went to great lengths to conceal their orientation, sometimes even marrying and hiding it from their wives while satisfying their sexual urges on the “down low.”

Today, the opposite is happening. Gay people often celebrate their homosexuality with great fanfare, as seen in the annual Pride parades that take place throughout the world. We are now in the midst of Pride Month. Western civilization not only treats homosexuals with complete social equality; it increasingly bends over backwards to make homosexuality morally equivalent to heterosexuality.

This is absolutely not the way the Torah looks at it.

Torah law does not change increasingly seeks to erase any vestige of biblical values from public consciousness. Religious objections notwithstanding.

As much as there is a public push by well intended people and institutions with enough influence to promote this level of tolerance, the public is not yet entirely convinced. There are still people who have issues with homosexuality. Some unfairly, and some based simply on religious values.

An article in eJewish Philanthropy touches upon this aspect of the issue.

Where does Orthodoxy fit in…

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. 

Why They Are Silent?

Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch and Rav Dov Lando

It’s the leadership. How they are chosen, and the system that teaches their de facto infallibility. Which includes a denial of that infallibility as human beings while at the same time treating them as if they are infallible. That explains how the Charedi culture of our time has evolved into.

Thus, when the two elderly Roshei Yeshiva now recognized as the Gedolei HaDor (thereby implicitly conferring an aura of infallibility upon their views) express those views, or fail to express views they should have expressed, it is treated as though God Himself had spoken. Those of us who might be upset by positions that seem counterintuitive to the will of God are told that we simply misunderstand what ‘Daas Torah’ is all about.

I believe that many of the problems facing the Charedi world today are a direct result of this version of Daas Torah.

Why these two elderly Roshei Yeshiva are now recognized as the Gedolei HaDor remains a mystery to me. I suspect, however, that it is because they have been recognized for their Torah knowledge for decades. That, combined with their advanced age, has led a consensus of younger Roshei Yeshiva to ‘anoint’ them: The Gedolei HaDor.

I say this without rancor. They cannot help how old they are. Nor can they help the immense respect they receive. They are unquestionably great Talmidei Chachamim—the minimum requirement for even being considered a Gadol. I also believe they possess genuine humility despite the role that has been cast upon them.

At the same time, however, I believe they use this conferred authority to advance an agenda they consider vital to the survival of what they consider authentic Judaism. They sincerely believe that their views reflect what God wants of His people.

This helps explain how they are able to raise many millions of dollars on behalf of Charedi youth who, at their behest, refuse to comply with Israel’s draft laws. Which caused the government to end the stipends that have till now supported them for decades. It also explains why there have been violent protests by the extremists in their midst on behalf of Charedim arrested for draft evasion during a time of war.

Protests that included screaming at people, burning flags, setting dumpsters on fire, vandalizing property, blocking traffic for hours, surrounding buses, and even setting fires around them. These actions have created massive Chilul HaShem.

A public outcry over the failure of these Gedolim to publicly condemn such behavior was recently answered in an article that sought to justify their silence. Which illustrates just how far they see the infallibility conferred upon them.

The argument was that they need not condemn what the Torah already condemns. Had these protesters adhered to the dictates of the Torah in the first place, they would never have acted this way. Furthermore, it was argued, these extremist young Charedim would not listen anyway.

Why wouldn’t they listen…

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 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.