Iran is raining ballistic missiles down on Israeli cities. I support what Israel did, which I will explain later on. Trump knew Israel was going to do this and telegraphed his desire that the United States not get involved. However, because of Israel’s actions, the United States is being dragged into the kinetic phase World War III. As regular readers know, I am generally opposed to war unless conflict threatens the security of the United States (see The US and NATO in the Balkans; War Hawks and the Ugly American: The Origins of Bush’s Middle East Policy; Sowing the Seeds of Terrorism? Capitalist Intrigue and Adventurism in Afghanistan; History and Sides-Taking in the Russo-Ukrainian War).
This is not an ideal time for the United States to get involved in another war in the Middle East. We’re trying to end a war between Ukraine (and by extension Europe) and Russia. We have 20 million illegal alien invaders that we have to get out of our country. Between Ukraine and open borders the Democrats have really put the United States in a terrible place. This was by design. The design? The managed decline of the American Republic.
I want to provide the background on this matter so readers can understand that there is something very dark going on the world that warrants the destruction of the Islamist regime in Tehran but that at the same time imperils Trump’s project to reclaim the American Republic for the People. Crucial to understand the situation is exposing the role Obama Democrats have played in building up Iran and enabling the development of offensive nuclear weapons in a terrorist nation allied with China. In effect, they set a trap for Israel and the United States.
The situation is yet another reason why Democrats must never be allow to regain power. This is not unconnected to what is happening in the United States with yet another color revolution aiming to undermine the second Trump Administration. All this is connected to the globalist project to dismantle the West in order to establish a transnational corporate state and usher in a neofeudalist world governed by technocrats. The global elite have know for some time that the only way to protect their power and privilege is to establish a post-capitalist world government by a New Aristocracy. Agentic artificial intelligence has hastened the time they have to establish the New World Order and so they are moving aggressively. Soon the world will be in crisis as billions of workers will have no productive value to the corporate elite.
I begin the background with the Islamic Revolution in Iran and steps the United States took to isolate the regime. Iranian funds were frozen in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution overthrew the Shah and led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini. That same year, the US embassy in Tehran was overrun by Iranian students who took 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage for over a year. In response to the crisis, Jimmy Carter ordered the freezing of nearly 12 billion dollars in Iranian government assets held in US banks and their overseas branches. These included central bank reserves, real estate, and other financial holdings. The freeze was intended as both a punitive measure and a form of leverage during the hostage negotiations. (I will avoid a digression into why Carter failed to stop the Iranian Revolution, but you can read my thoughts here: Who’s Responsible for Iran’s Theocratic State? See also: Facing Down Evil.)
During the Clinton years, the administration viewed Iran as a sponsor of terrorism and an opponent of the US in the Middle East, particularly due to its support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and its opposition to the Oslo peace process. In 1995, Clinton issued an executive order banning all US trade and investment in Iran, citing Iran’s support for terrorism and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. This was later codified in the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) of 1996, which threatened to sanction foreign companies investing more than 20 dollars million in Iran’s energy sector. The goal was to choke off funds that could fuel Iran’s nuclear or military ambitions. Though Iran was years away from a functional nuclear program, its nuclear ambitions were already a growing concern.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, George W. Bush gave his now-famous “Axis of Evil” speech, lumping Iran with Iraq and North Korea as regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. From that point forward, the Bush administration pursued a confrontational stance. In 2002, revelations emerged that Iran had secretly built nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak. This intensified fears that Iran was developing nuclear weapons capabilities. Bush supported international efforts to investigate Iran’s nuclear program and pushed for Iran to halt enrichment activities.
While the US was engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, both wars I opposed (although I did advocate direct action against Osama bin Laden’s installation in the Tora Bora mountain range), it also pursued covert operations in Iran, including intelligence gathering and possibly sabotage. The Bush administration supported Iranian dissident groups and sought regime change. The 2006 and 2007 sanctions imposed through the United Nations Security Council—backed by US diplomatic pressure—were a turning point in formalizing international opposition to Iran’s nuclear activities. Bush also signed executive orders targeting Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Quds Force.
All this changed with the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Under Obama, the US pursued a diplomatic agreement with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015. The way the deal was presented was that it aimed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons by limiting its nuclear activities in exchange for relief from international sanctions. What did the deal do? It released Iranian assets that had been frozen for decades. These funds—amounting to roughly 100–150 billion dollars in total Iranian assets—were Iranian funds that had been held abroad due to sanctions. In addition to releasing frozen Iranian assets, the US delivered 1.7 billion dollars to Iran in cash: 400 million dollars—a decades-old payment owed for a failed arms deal from before the 1979 Iranian revolution—and 1.3 billion dollars in interest.
When Donald Trump became president in 2017, he took a starkly different approach. In 2018, he withdrew the US from the JCPOA, not only because it was a bad deal that empowered Iran, but because it had failed to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Following this, the Trump administration launched a “maximum pressure” campaign by reimposing and intensifying economic sanctions on Iran. These included sanctions on oil exports, banking, and other vital sectors of the Iranian economy. The goal was to economically isolate Iran and force it back into negotiations. Trump sought a peaceful solution to the problem of a nuclear Iran—but one that did not enable Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions.
These sanctions deeply impacted Iran’s economy, reducing its oil revenue and straining its currency. Critics argued this approach increased tensions in the region and pushed Iran closer to nuclear weapons development. On the contrary, it curtailed Iran’s regional aggression and economic strength—and made it difficult for Iran to continue its offensive nuclear weapons program. Trump’s efforts at work peace here and in other hot spots was confronted by Democrats who worked tirelessly to undermine his presidency. In 2020, they engineered a coup and installed former Senator are Vice-President under Obama Joe Biden as president.
Under Biden, the administration sought to revive the JCPOA. In 2023, a high-profile deal involved the US allowing $6 billion in previously frozen Iranian funds (held in South Korea) to be transferred to Qatar as part of a prisoner swap between the US and Iran. The Biden administration emphasized that the funds could only be used for humanitarian purposes (food and medicine). The Biden administration defended the move as part of a broader diplomatic strategy. This was not naïveté. It was a return to the Obama program to strengthen Iran. Critics rightly viewed this as effectively providing Iran access to funds that could free up resources for malign activities.
As a consequence, and in the wake of the terrorist attack on Israel in October 2023, on June 13, 2025, Israel launched a sweeping airstrike campaign across Iran, targeting over 100 military and nuclear facilities in a move aimed at crippling Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. The assault, coordinated by the Israeli military and Mossad, struck key sites, including Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz, and reportedly killed several high-ranking Iranian officials and nuclear scientists. Iran retaliated with a barrage of drones and ballistic missiles, killing at least three Israeli civilians.
The attack followed heightened concerns from the IAEA over Iran’s nuclear activity and sparked sharp international debate—praised by US Republicans as a necessary act of self-defense but criticized by Democrats as dangerously escalatory. Indeed, the strike marks a dramatic escalation in Israel-Iran tensions and could reshape Middle East dynamics. More than this, it could spark a full-blown world war.
The day before Israel launched the attack, at the dinner table sharing a meal with my wife and youngest son, I said I thought Israel would launch a military strike against Iran the next day. I saw the signals. My son, who had been following the news, called to tell me I was right. As the news came in, I learned more details. I spent a day reflecting on the matter. I shared my thoughts on Facebook about why I support Israel’s actions. I want to share my thoughts—but first, I want to explain how I try to think about such matters.
I have taken to working from first principles. This has cleared up a lot of my thinking. It’s why I have changed my mind on several crucial issues, all of which I have discussed on this platform. By focusing on basic, fundamental truths—in this case, respecting a nation’s sovereignty, not initiating violence without good reason, and the right to self-defense—I feel we can extend clear and consistent ways to judge actions to foreign relations. This may help you decide where to stand.
Generally, it’s both legally and morally wrong for one country to attack another without a serious reason—and by serious, I mean something like an attack, an immediate threat, or something that could wipe out a country’s existence. This principle is there to prevent imperialism or unchecked aggression. It lies at the core of the Peace of Westphalia. However, imagine a situation where a country is building nuclear weapons, funding terrorist attacks, and openly calling for another state’s destruction. Here the principle of non-aggression pushes up against another important principle: the right to self-defense, which is a foundational right recognized in international law.
To understand this better, it helps to think about two kinds of mistakes in statistical reasoning: Type I and Type II errors. A Type I error occurs if Israel strikes Iran because it believes Iran is an immediate threat when it really isn’t. If that happens, Israel starts a war that wasn’t necessary, creates regional instability, hurts its international reputation, and provokes retaliation that may have been avoided. That’s the risk of acting when one shouldn’t. We call this a false positive.
A Type II error would be not acting, thinking the threat isn’t serious, when Iran is preparing a devastating attack or building weapons that could wipe out Israel. Then the threat goes unchecked and that could mean terrible consequences: Iran having nuclear weapons, terrorists emboldened, or even a direct attack causing mass casualties. That’s the risk of failing to act when action is needed we call a false negative. Crucially, Israel did not attack out of aggression—it acted out of necessity, to protect its people and its future. Moreover, the strike made have made the region safer by negating a growing threat: a terrorist state with nuclear weapons. Better to commit a Type I error here than a Type II error.
For years, Iran has made clear that it sees Israel as an enemy to be destroyed. Its leaders openly call for Israel’s destruction and back that up by supporting terrorist groups—Hamas, Hezbollah—which have attacked Israeli civilians repeatedly. Iran’s strategy of surrounding Israel with hostile proxies and destabilizing the region is very real. Tehran continues enriching uranium beyond what’s needed for peaceful use and has blocked inspections in key places. The danger isn’t just that Iran might use a nuclear weapon against Israel. Just having an offensive nuclear capacity would make Iran bolder and shift the balance of power in the region toward a hostile, fanatical Islamist regime run by clerical fascists. This isn’t only Israel’s problem—Iran is a threat to regional, even global security.
Given all this, Israel’s strike on Iran’s military and nuclear sites shouldn’t be seen as breaking international rules, but as an act of preemptive self-defense. Israel didn’t take this path lightly. But when faced with clear and escalating threats—when waiting could lead to disaster—the right to self-defense isn’t just justified; it’s an obligation. The people come first.
First principles tell us to respect sovereignty and avoid war whenever possible. But they also demand action when doing nothing means risking destruction. No country should have to wait for a catastrophe before defending itself. Israel wants peace. It’s not the aggressor. Iran is a terrorist state. Israel can’t risk the lives of its citizens hoping its enemies—a gang of religious zealots—will restrain themselves. In this case, failing to act is far worse than acting—and acting early.
Many believe we are in the early kinetic phase of the Third World War. Will Israel’s actions add to the growing intensity of national antagonisms? Perhaps. Will stopping a terrorist nation from developing nuclear weapons make the war less destructive? Imagine total war on the Eurasian landmass. Would it make the situation worse to have a nuclear Iran? Yes, I think so.
Hopefully Israel’s actions will force Iran to return to the negotiating table to deal with Trump and help build his vision of shared peace and prosperity. Perhaps the Israel-Iran conflict will embolden Iranians to rise up and overthrow the clerical fascist regime (that Carter stupidly allowed to come to power) and resurrect Persia, one of the great civilizations of history, today kept in darkness by the mullahs of Tehran. There are other points we might consider here. But the key point is that Israel had to stop a recalcitrant entity from getting its hairy paws on nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is a nightmare par excellence.
But here’s where we must draw the line: while I support Israel’s right—and responsibility—to defend itself, the United States must not allow itself to be dragged into another Middle Eastern war that ultimately serves the interests of our enemies, both foreign and domestic. Trump was right to urge restraint. The instinct to stay out of this fight is not isolationism—it’s survival. It is the proper application of strategic nationalism.
Let’s be clear: Israel can—and must—defend itself. But that does not mean the American people should once again be conscripted—financially, militarily, politically—into someone else’s war. Especially not now. Under Biden, the US was on the brink: our economy was fragile, our borders collapsing, our institutions captured by globalist ideologues, and our military emasculated by woke bureaucrats. We cannot afford another war that bleeds our resources and distracts from the existential task at home: the restoration of the American Republic.
It’s no coincidence that the same forces pushing the US toward deeper entanglement in foreign conflict—Democrat elites, legacy media, transnational NGOs—are also the architects of our decline. These are the same people who sabotaged Trump, enabled Iran’s rise, armed terrorists, opened our borders, corrupted our elections, and now want to drag us into a catastrophic global conflict in the name of “defending democracy.” It is not democracy they defend—it’s their empire.
The truth is this: the war Israel is fighting is a just war, but it’s not America’s war to fight directly—certainly not under the leadership of those who have betrayed America’s national interest at every turn. If Trump chooses to engage based on a coherent, America First strategy that serves the Republic, then and only then can such involvement be reassessed. Trump must speak about this soon. We need to know what he is thinking.
My advice to the President: Let Israel act. Let her win. But let America not be sacrificed in the process. The first duty of a sovereign government is to its own people. The path back to American greatness is not through Tehran or Tel Aviv—it’s through Washington, DC, and the removal of the globalist regime that has led us to this precipice. We support our allies best not by fighting their wars for them, but by restoring the Republic at home so that peace through strength is possible once again.
Trump’s project is not merely political—it’s civilizational. The stakes are nothing less than the survival of ordered liberty in a world descending into chaos. The United States must be wise enough not to mistake support for servitude—and strong enough to defend its own future before extending its strength abroad. To be sure, these are not unconnected, but the way forward demands prudence. The greatest contribution America can make to peace in the world is the restoration of its own sovereignty. That cannot be sacrificed for Israel’s sake. They made the decision to go to war with Iran. We did not agree to go to war with them.
I reserve the right to change my mind on this. Nobody wants to see an Islamic regime in Iran. No rational person, anyway. Not just for the United States and Israel, but for the Iranian people. If this can be accomplished without spending another 6 trillion dollars (the total cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to the United States) and losing another 7,000 US service members (with many times more maimed and brains scrambled), then I am open to providing support to Israel’s efforts. But I fear it can’t, and so, for now, I urge the President to keep us out of war.
freedom and reason 