The Iran War

Nuclear War is our biggest existential threat.

Iran’s current regime is determined to have nuclear weapons.

Therefore, this is a war for regime change to avoid Iran having nuclear weapons.

The current Iranian regime is also the biggest exporter of terrorism.  And it has called for “Death to America” incessantly for nearly 50 years.

I have documentation of being a “never Trumper” since 1988.  I have repeatedly lauded                Separation of Powers as the key to our national success and have consistently, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, objected to Congress relinquishing power to the President.  Below I note some criticisms of President Trump and why the Republicans’ comparison to Libya is inaccurate.

Despite the previous paragraph, the world will be much safer if we topple the Iranian regime.

Many in the liberal press and many Democrats instigate opposition to the war by focusing attention on its disadvantages.  Their efforts are damaging:

1.      Because of the emphasis on the increasing price of oil, President Trump temporarily released sanctions on Russian oil, to the detriment of Ukraine.

2.      If President Trump curtails activities prior to regime change, the world will be much less safe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments drill down.

President Trump is consistently not being interested in spreading democracy, neither in Venezuela nor Iran.  Iranian dissatisfaction with the regime is a strategic asset in his eyes.  This is very different from most previous “regime change” wars.

Instead of rallying the nation by noting that higher temporary oil prices are a small price to pay for removing Iran’s nuclear capability, many press/Democrats focus on oil price increases.  CNN has stated multiple times that oil prices have never been higher during Trump presidencies.  A more appropriate (and simpler) message is that oil prices are still lower than under President Biden.  CNN preferred contorted language to cast the price increase in a bad light.

I created the following cartoon using AI.

Ukraine has helped us in the Iran War by providing anti-drone expertise.  Ukraine benefits from the Iran War to the degree that the war cuts off a source of drones for Russia.  However, suspending sanctions on Russian oil undermines Ukraine.

President Trump wisely boosted our energy independence.  His “all of the above” approach is faulty in overly reducing attention to renewables (which I believe will grow, albeit more slowly, despite his efforts).  President Obama opposed fracking (but took credit for the economic growth it created).  President Biden tried to close all carbon power plants and block liquid natural gas exportation.  We, and our allies, are safer with Trump’s energy strategy.

To stimulate opposition, many press/Democrats claim there is no clear goal for the war and no plan.  Despite President Trump’s communication flaws, I think the goal is clear (see above).

Many press/Democrats focus on our military deaths, rather than recognize there have been impressively few deaths compared to the impact of our bombing.  We don’t know whether there is a complete plan, but clearly there has been a well-coordinated plan of attack so far.

CNN says the war has caused Americans to feel insecure due to radical Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks.  On 9/11, we joined the rest of the world in recognizing our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.  We’ve had domestic shootings, as well as terrorist attacks, that cause us to feel insecure.  CNN should encourage us to be vigilant to maximize safety and should explain that success will increase safety.

Many Democrats/press still tout President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal with Iran.  The deal had various 10-15-year limitations on Iran and required Iran to reduce (not eliminate) stockpiles of enriched uranium and centrifuges.

These press/Democrats fail to mention that President Obama essentially recognized Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons and had no plan to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons after those short-term limitations expired.  What was he going to do?  Continue our history of rewarding nuclear development by bribing them to stop, with funds that would support more terrorist activity?

President Obama stated repeatedly that ”every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off”.  However, as I noted at the time, it did nothing to restrict Iran from developing nuclear weapons outside Iran.

Many press/Democrats say the attack on Iran is illegal because there was no “imminent” threat.  While I favor the “imminent threat” philosophy and agree that Congress should declare war, Trump, like many Presidents, justified his action under the War Powers Resolution, which does not require an “imminent” threat.  It deals with hostile action (regardless of imminent threat) and, secondly, placing the military in a position where they might be subject to an imminent threat.

Nonetheless, Secretary Rubio addressed the “imminent” threat issue.  He said Israel was about to attack Iran and our government concluded Iran would respond by attacking us.  He stated we attacked Iran at that time not because Israel pushed us to do so, but because of the imminent threat that Iran would attack us.  It affected, as he expanded later, the timing of the attack, not whether to attack.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the above rationale, but I think it is terrible that many press/Democrats have chosen to mischaracterize it.

I don’t criticize government every time something goes wrong.  We can’t control everything.  Imagine what these Democrats/press would have said if Israel attacked Iran, as we sat on the sideline; Iran then attacked us, inflicting casualties; and it became public that the Trump administration anticipated Iran’s attack and our losses, but decided to take no proactive steps to thwart it.

On March 5, 2026, the House of Representatives passed Resolution 1099, affirming that “Iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism”.  It made no mention of attacking Iran. 

Adam Smith (D, WA), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, released this statement: “I agree with the principal assertion of this resolution that Iran is a bad actor.  Iran’s malign and destabilizing actions in the region and treatment of its own citizens should be denounced.  I have never contested this.  What I do contest is that going to war is the reasonable response to this assertion.  I support this resolution.  I do not support the president’s war of choice with Iran.”

Yet 53 Democrats (25%) opposed this resolution.  Why?  Congresswoman Lateefah Simon said, in part,  ”I voted against H.Res 1099, a Republican resolution that contains inaccuracies and is designed to justify the President’s actions in Iran…. That is already U.S. policy.  This resolution … puts Congress on record as giving the Administration further pretext for a war that should not have been started in the first place.”

She cited no inaccuracies in the brief resolution.  How can the resolution provide “further pretext” if it simply restates what “is already U. S. policy”?  If she, and the other 52 Democrats, agree that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism but oppose the war, why not take the same approach as Adam Smith?  Why vote against a resolution that precisely states their position?  Might their vote encourage Iran to continue resisting?

President Trump’s defenders cite President Obama’s action in Libya as precedent.  However, President Trump is, as he continually does, hugely expanding on past precedents.  Some key differences between the current war in Iran and the 2011_military_intervention_in_Libya:

1)      We were part of a broad-based consortium in Libya.  President Trump has stupidly and frivolously eroded support from our allies.

2)     United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized the action.  NATO led it.

3)     Fighting was occurring in Libya; the stated goal was to end that fighting.

4)     Secretary of Defense Gates discussed the intervention in advance in a Congressional hearing.

5)     Hopefully, unlike NATO, President Trump will not cease our efforts too soon.  President Obama said the "worst mistake" of his presidency was "probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya."

However:

a)      The Libya effort lasted 7.5 months.

b)     It accomplished regime change with only minimal special forces activity on the ground.  Note: While regime change was NOT part of the U. N. Resolution, it appears to have been a goal.

c)      Involvement of special forces violated the U. N. Resolution. 

d)     On June 24^th, 2011, the House of Representatives voted down Joint Resolution 68 which would have authorized U. S. involvement for up to 12 months.  Even 38% of Democrats voted against Resolution 68, but President Obama plowed ahead without authorization.

e)     The French had initially stimulated the action, reportedly because of oil (sound familiar?).