In his Farewell Address of 1796, George Washington warned against foreign entanglements. The United States should avoid becoming involved in the permanent alliances and political affairs of other nations—particularly in Europe. “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Washington’s guidance shaped American foreign policy for over a century. This is the principle of non-interventionism.
Those who know me know that I have always opposed regime change wars and wars of choice. The disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya shows us what happens when the United States prosecutes open-ended conflicts with no clear exit strategy and no sober understanding of the long-term consequences. In general, removing governments—assuming there are circumstances that necessitate this—without a plan for what comes next creates power vacuums, empowers extremists, and results in unnecessary loss of life. There are of course circumstances that involve regime change that do not permit planning, such as World War II. But total war is an exceptional circumstance. Maybe there is no circumstance in which a plan works out.
President Trump’s stated foreign policy approach rejects endless wars and focuses instead on protecting American interests without getting entangled in foreign nation-building. This is one of the main reasons I supported Trump in 2024. His administration insists that the decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities was not about regime change—it was about preventing a dangerous regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. There’s a crucial difference between starting a war and taking decisive, limited action to defend our national security.
Before getting into yesterday’s actions, it’s worth looking at Trump’s first term as President and notable military actions his administration took then. Crucially, a key feature of Trump’s approach to military power during his first term was a willingness to use force selectively, often with an emphasis on deterrence and reasserting American strength, while also expressing a desire to reduce prolonged US involvement in overseas conflicts. I knew this when I threw my support behind him.
One of the earliest military actions came in April 2017, when Trump ordered a missile strike on a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack by Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Later, in April 2018, Trump authorized a second, more extensive missile strike on Syrian targets, again in response to chemical attacks. These actions were part of a broader policy of signaling US resolve while not leading to deeper military involvement in Syria. I opposed these attacks at the time because I did not trust the intelligence and I did not support US intervention in Syria. To his credit, Trump ended significant US involvement in Syria.
Another significant military action was the 2017 deployment of a MOAB (the largest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal) against ISIS targets in Afghanistan. While the strike had a tactical impact, the main purpose was demonstration of American firepower. Trump also escalated US military operations in Afghanistan early in his term, but by 2020, he had begun drawing down troops, again, consistent with his stance of ending endless wars.
In January 2020, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani near Baghdad International Airport. Soleimani led the Quds Force, the elite unit of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) responsible for foreign operations, espionage, and support of allied militant groups across the Middle East. Soleimani was the mastermind behind Tehran’s proxy networks in countries like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. The strike raised tensions with Iran, with Iran responding by launching missiles at US bases in Iraq, however the crisis did not escalate into full-scale war.
In a previous essay on Freedom and Reason (America First is Not Israel First), I emphasized that, as one of the most directly threatened nations, Israel has both the motive and the right to act in its own self-defense. However, I stated that their war was not our war. I still don’t support Israel’s goal of regime change—although it would please me very much to see the Persian people overthrow clerical fascism in Iran. However, it appears that new intelligence has come to light that shows Iran’s nuclear program was far more advanced than previously understood. That this intelligence was likely supplied by Israel is spun as Israel manipulating Trump. But the fact is that Israeli spies are all over Iran and have better intelligence than the US.
The new intelligence assessment changes things. We were now confronted by a hostile regime, with a long record of sponsoring terrorism, getting dangerously close to building a nuclear weapon. Yes, I am well aware of the WMD ruse perpetrated by the neocons under the Bush-Cheney regime. But I knew it was a ruse before the US bombed Baghdad. Perhaps it will come out that the Trump Administration lied about Iran’s weapons program. But presuming the intelligence is reasonable, at that point degrading Iran’s offensive nuclear capacity ceases being just Israel’s problem; it became an immediate threat to the United States, to our forces abroad, to our allies across the region, and to global stability. The stakes had changed, and thus so did the necessity of American involvement.
Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities was not an impulsive act—it was a measured and, again if the intelligence is correct, necessary step to prevent a dangerous regime from obtaining the most destructive weapons known to man. The suggestion has been made that, if we have nuclear weapons, then why can’t Iran have nuclear weapons. Because Iran’s leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not a rational state actor on the world stage. It has violated international norms and flouted the nuclear agreement it signed, working in secret to enrich uranium and expand its offensive nuclear infrastructure.
The Iranian regime has made its intentions clear: it seeks to dominate the Middle East, destroy Israel, and export its Islamofascist ideology. Under these conditions, allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be catastrophic—not only for our allies in the region, but for the entire world.
Iran’s long-standing sponsorship of terrorism underscores exactly why it should never be allowed anywhere near a nuclear weapon. For decades, Iran has funded and armed Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, which has carried out attacks against civilians, including Americans, and threatened Israel daily. Iran has also supported Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza, responsible for countless rocket attacks on Israeli cities. Israeli actions on both fronts have sharply degraded the capacity of these proxies to hurt Israeli civilians.
Beyond the Levant, Iran has supported violent Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, which have contributed to the deaths of American servicemembers and undermined efforts at post-conflict stabilization. These Iranian-backed forces have attacked US personnel, harassed civilian populations, and helped keep brutal dictators like Bashar al-Assad in power.
In Yemen, Iran has supplied the Houthis with drones, missiles, and the training to carry out precision strikes far beyond Yemen’s borders. The Houthis have attacked oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, threatened the UAE, and targeted international shipping lanes in the Red Sea. Iran’s ambitions are not confined to one border or one battlefield but stretch from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean.
In short, these aren’t isolated incidents. They are part of a calculated Iranian strategy to destabilize the region using militant proxies that act in its interest while giving Tehran plausible deniability. These groups do not just fight conventional wars; they deliberately target civilians, spread chaos, and are ideologically committed to the destruction of peaceful societies. The notion that a regime which empowers these groups should be entrusted with nuclear capabilities is beyond dangerous—it’s suicidal.
Iran’s IRGC, especially its elite Quds Force, has acted as the command-and-control center for this terrorist export machine. With access to nuclear weapons, the Iranian regime would not only become more aggressive—it would be emboldened to escalate its proxy warfare, knowing the threat of nuclear retaliation could deter international pushback. Giving this regime nuclear weapons would drastically raise the stakes of every regional conflict and could embolden Tehran to pursue its goals even more aggressively, under the umbrella of nuclear deterrence. The world cannot let that happen. Trump has been telling the world for decades that he would not allow this to happen.
Diplomacy and international oversight have failed to rein in Iran’s ambitions. Indeed, actions by the Obama and Biden administrations enabled Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as I discussed in that previous essay. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an international agreement reached in 2015 between Iran and a group of world powers (including China) was designed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. But the JCPOA did nothing to address Iran’s ballistic missile development or its support for terrorism. Worse, Iran violated its commitments by enriching uranium beyond permissible limits and obstructing inspections.
And let’s be clear—President Trump’s actions are not unconstitutional. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct limited military operations to protect US national security interests. The strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities falls squarely within this framework. It was a targeted action aimed at a specific threat, not a declaration of war or a long-term military campaign.
Congress retains the power to declare war, but the President has broad latitude to act swiftly in the face of imminent threats—especially when intelligence and the global security environment demand immediate response. Past presidents of both parties have exercised this authority. Trump’s decision to strike was not only legal, but also within the tradition of American executive action to prevent greater harm and preserve peace through strength.
Indeed, it is rather hypocritical for Democrats to call for Trump’s impeachment over yesterday’s action given that, during his presidency, Obama oversaw a wide range of military actions that reflected his power to use force when deemed necessary. A hallmark of Obama’s military strategy was an expanded drone warfare program, particularly in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, targeting terrorist leaders with precision strikes.
My opposition to those actions was not over the question of the President’s Article II powers, but over justification and outcomes. For example, in 2011, Obama led a NATO coalition intervention in Libya that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. This action left the country in chaos. I criticized Obama not only for the result but for acting in the first place, since there was no legitimate reason for toppling Gaddafi. On the other hand, Obama ordered the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The point is that, overall, Obama’s military policy used targeted force against high-priority threats, and I don’t recall progressive Democrats calling for Obama’s impeachment for any of these actions.
The question is this: do we allow a regime that funds terrorists and openly threatens our allies acquire the deadliest weapons on Earth? I am not categorically opposed to military action. But I need a reason. At this point, based on what I know, I have a reason. Hopefully the regime in power in Tehran understands that retaliating against the United States will result in the destruction of its clerical dictatorship.
But I also want to be clear that I do not want the US to go to war against Iran—not because I don’t want to see regime change there, but because it will be too costly in blood and treasure. And, on principle, it’s not our place to engineer governments in foreign countries. What is more, if the situation escalates into war, it will become Trump’s agenda, and everything we wanted from his presidency will be derailed.
freedom and reason 