On Saturday, February 28th, the United States and Israel attacked the Islamic State of Iran. The attack continues today, and it will most likely last until two objectives are accomplished: destroying the Iranian missile capability, so they can’t launch attacks on the U.S. and its allies in the region, and convincing the remaining Islamic state leaders to discard their radical behavior. Iran retaliated against U.S. bases in the Gulf states, infuriating the leaders of those states to the point where at least one, Saudi Arabia, said they would be joining America’s effort.
Iranian people around the world are celebrating the death of the Supreme Leader, hoping the theocracy can be overthrown. It remains to be seen how, and whether, the people inside Iran can rise and create a new government. Revolutions are tricky things, and they fail as often as they succeed. People on the street are a gauge of dissent, but contribute nothing to revolutions. The outcome depends solely on the intentions of the wealthy; will they see a benefit in the change? It also depends on the intellectuals who must sanction the process.
Unfortunately, Iran, like many Arab states, is struggling with factional politics. Four groups are competing for power there: conservatives who strongly support the theocratic model, reformists who support social reform within the theocratic system, moderates who focus on economic and managerial competence rather than ideological overhaul, and the opposition, which seeks to tear down the theocracy. The first two groups have the power, and it may be difficult to wrest it away from them. Another possible outcome is the implementation of reforms, which may cool the public enthusiasm for change.
From an American interest standpoint, any outcome that stops Iran’s support and encouragement of terrorism around the world would be great. The world would truly be safer if that happened.
The remaining leaders of Iran contacted Trump and asked for a meeting. He told them he would take their call after the mission was complete. This message cuts off any notion they had about getting a quick ceasefire. For 47 years, the Iranian Islamic state has been lying to the world about its nefarious intentions and its willingness to discuss solutions, making an absolute fool of Obama, along the way.
This instance is classic Trump. Negotiate if you can, and give the opposition time and reasons to agree. In the business world, running out of time means the deal is off. In our conflicts between nations, time running out means that, if you’re evil enough, you will be attacked.
For 47 years, Iran has threatened its neighbors in the Middle East. It has funded proxy groups, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others, who create instability and seek the destruction of Israel. It killed our Marines in Beirut, killed sailors on the Cole, and threatened to kill our presidents. In the last two months, it had killed 32,000 of its own citizens who were protesting the economic conditions in their country. Enough is enough.
The Congress had its typical reaction. The Democrats accuse Trump of waging war without their permission. A Democratic politician said, “Trump used the word ‘war’ in his attack announcement, so it must be a war.”
This is an old complaint we have seen many times.
Long ago, Congress gave up its authority to initiate war, ceding that power to the president. Formal declarations of war have gone the way of the buggy whip, used at a time when nations were more polite than they are now. “Oh, you declared war on me? Alright, I will now declare war on you.” The following list shows some of the undeclared “wars” since the end of World War II.
Vietnam War (1965-73). U.S. fatalities: ~58,220 Johnson
Korean War (1950-53). U.S. fatalities: ~36,574 Truman
Iraqi War (2003-11). U.S. fatalities: ~4,550 Bush 43
Afghan War (2001-2021). U.S. fatalities: ~2,461 Bush 43
Gulf War (1990–1991). U.S. fatalities: ~294 Bush 41
Lebanon (1982–1984). U.S. fatalities: ~241 Reagan
Iraq & Syria (ISIS campaign, 2014-) U.S. fatalities: ~100 Obama
The Democrats can tout the fact that the resistance to Trump’s attack on Iran is bipartisan because they include the two “useful idiots” from the Republican side, Thomas Massie and Rand Paul. Both are libertarians, the most idealistic and impractical political ideology ever conceived by man.
I cite two examples and rest my case. Number one, libertarians believe in open borders. Number two, they support the legalization of marijuana. They are small-government advocates, a concept that became obsolete in the 1930s.
I would gladly trade Massie and Paul for John Fetterman, who puts America’s interests above politics.
What do the 2028 Democratic candidates say about the attack?
Former Vice President Kamala Harris condemned President Donald Trump’s decision to launch large-scale military strikes on Iran, calling the operation a “dangerous and unnecessary gamble” and urging Congress to intervene before the United States is drawn deeper into what critics are describing as a war of choice. (Prediction: the attack may end before Congress addresses it.)
“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Gavin Newsom told a San Francisco audience while promoting his new memoir. “It stems from the complete failure of this administration, this president who’s historically unpopular.”
In these examples, candidacy adds a layer of hyperbole to Trump hatred because they must try to outdo their competition by offering raw meat to the base.
On the other hand, Moj Mahdara, head of the Iranian Diaspora Initiative, appeared on CNN on Sunday and said, “As a Democrat, I am not with my party right now.” She sees them as being on the wrong side of this issue.
Twenty-seven percent of Americans surveyed approved of the strikes, 43% disapproved, and nearly three in 10 were not sure. But there’s a partisan divide, with Republicans supporting the military action by a 55%-32% margin. The vast majority of Democrats, 73%, disapproved of the strikes, with only 7% saying they approved.
A plurality of independents, 44%, disapproved of the military attack, with 19% supportive and nearly four in 10 unsure. In this tribal time, one can expect no “atta boys” from the left, and we see the usual mixed bag from the independents.
Most of our European allies condemned the counterstrikes by Iran against its neighbors while avoiding criticism of Trump over the U.S./Israeli attacks. An odd exception was Keir Starmer, of the UK, who condemned our attacks as a breach of international law. Does he think Iran never violated international law? His position spells the end of Starmer’s relationship with the U.S., which his successor will have to repair.
President Trump will carry this attack to its logical conclusion, and then it becomes a waiting game to see whether the Iranian government will change. We hope for at least a softening of its belligerent stance against the world, which would be a positive outcome.
Democrats are the party of peace, which also means they are the party of submission. They continue to believe that if you are nice to tyrants, they will be nice to you. No matter how foolish and naïve that idea is, it remains a fundamental component of their equality ideology.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
 | A guest post by
|
Yours is the second Wrong Speak piece in a week supportive of this war. I didn't bother to comment on the first one, but I was pretty surprised to read yours coming from a historian. You have so many facts wrong. I'm not going to spend time itemising them for you, even though that might garner me negative points from you. All I can say is that there are many Americans interviewing other American former military/CIA-type experts who've had the on-the-ground past war experience and knowledge, and they've already debunked most of what you've said. There are also interviews with people who have very recently been to Iran to find out what's really going on presently, and who paint a different picture. I'll admit I'm not American but my also not-American friends and relatives admire those types of experts. They certainly come across as credible, and they end up making the US appear great. Thank goodness, I'd say, because at the moment the US is not respected and in fact a subject of mockery in many countries. One only needs to take the recent statements of your president to demonstrate why. I've also heard many Americans say this is no longer a left/right issue, which is how you seem to paint it; they've expressed it as an issue of ordinary Americans against the Epstein class.