 |
| The president declaring the US cease-fire with Iran - over |
Whether that means a return to full-scale war remains to be
seen. I hope it does, although I have my doubts. Public opposition is simply
too great.
I don’t get it. I really don’t. Much as I try to understand
the opposition to war against Iran, it escapes me. Some objections are
certainly legitimate. But they pale in comparison to what I believe is the
overriding issue.
It can be summed up with one question: What alternative is
there to defeating a regime determined to finish the genocide against the
Jewish people that Hitler failed to complete?
Iran’s rulers regard that objective as a religious
obligation. They have already begun pursuing it by arming terrorist proxies to
commit atrocities against Jews in Israel. Hamas’s October 7 massacre and
kidnappings were not an isolated event. They were the opening volley in Iran’s
long-declared war against the Jewish state.
Iran’s leaders openly proclaim their devotion to this cause.
Their cries of Allahu Akbar after acts of terror reflect their
belief that they are carrying out God’s will. Can anyone seriously believe that
such a regime can be negotiated out of what it considers a divine mission? Even
if it agreed to a deal, deception in pursuit of a higher religious objective is
hardly viewed by its leaders as immoral.
If there is an alternative to defeating the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—the military arm responsible for exporting
Iran’s revolutionary ideology—I would genuinely like to hear it. But if
preventing genocide ultimately requires destroying the IRGC’s ability to wage
war, what choice do we have?
Yet much of the American public opposes further military
action, as do most Democrats in Congress, a few Republicans, and many
governments around the world.
A ground invasion would undoubtedly come at an enormous
cost. American lives would be lost. The economic consequences would be
significant. Protests could rival those seen during the Vietnam War. The
political fallout would likely be severe.
Still, considering the stakes, I find the opposition
difficult to understand.
Most of the reasons offered have little to do with Iran
itself. They center on higher gasoline prices, rising grocery costs, and fear
of another long Middle Eastern war.
Others argue that Congress was not consulted before military
action was taken. That is a serious constitutional question. But it does not
answer the more fundamental one: What is the alternative?
Negotiations have repeatedly failed. Sanctions have damaged
Iran’s economy for years, yet they have not altered the regime’s priorities.
Its leaders have consistently demonstrated that their ideological mission
outweighs the suffering of their own people. They continue to chant “Death to
Israel” and “Death to America” despite the hardship those policies impose on
ordinary Iranians.
In my view, much of the opposition stems from a failure to
appreciate the nature of the Iranian regime. This is not simply another hostile
government pursuing ordinary geopolitical interests. It is a revolutionary
theocracy driven by an uncompromising religious ideology that openly embraces
Israel’s destruction. Should such a regime ever acquire nuclear weapons, the
threat would extend far beyond Israel.
Many Americans seem content with the status quo. They ask
why the president disrupted a fragile peace instead of leaving matters alone.
Israel’s security, they believe, is Israel’s problem, not America’s…
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.
