No, There’s No ‘Forever War’ in Iran

No, There’s No ‘Forever War’ in Iran

The ‘panican’ critics are saying otherwise, but their charges are easily refuted.

Matt Kane for American Thinker 

The term “regime change” has been a trigger for Americans ever since the invasion of Iraq and the destabilization of the Middle East in the early 2000s.  It is perfectly reasonable to be apprehensive about military affairs.  But even the portion of the U.S. population that leans anti-interventionist would likely concur that a change in the Iranian regime — one that has terrorized both Americans and the world for decades — is a positive development.  Therefore, regime change is not inherently bad or unpopular, but rather a matter of execution.

Due to the failures of prior “regime change” operations, the term has become synonymous with decades-long conflicts that result in countless deaths, as well as enormous waste and destruction, with no clear off-ramp.  Many terms and buzzwords that governments and politicians co-opt follow the same trajectory.  Take “political correctness,” for example, whose original definition called for well mannered rhetoric to prevent escalation but has since been hijacked to mask government misdeeds and allow them to continue by making the public fearful of speaking the truth.  The same can be said for “nation-building,” which in theory refers to efforts to strengthen less developed nations in need but in practice has often served as cover for corruption, instability, and overreach.  The list goes on.

There is good reason, however, to have confidence in regime change operations when they are carried out by President Trump.  His opposition to American intervention in the Middle East following the 9/11 attacks has been reinforced by his clear preference, as president, to minimize death and escalation through the power and precision of the U.S. military — a strategy that has resulted in swift and decisive American victories throughout his more than five years as commander in chief.

Debates about the potential for another long, drawn out war are to be expected.  But assurances that a repeat of a decades-long, boots-on-the-ground conflict is guaranteed immediately following the opening salvo — while the president himself has suggested that the entire operation could conclude in roughly one month, or sooner — are a massive overstatement.  They are also impossible to prove, especially considering Trump’s penchant for keeping his military intentions close to the vest so as not to tip his hand to the enemy.

It was just nine months ago that the immediate aftermath of Operation Midnight Hammer was met with similar assertions that it was “Iraq 2.0,” only for the operation to conclude before most Americans had even heard about it.  The capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro was another recent example of Trump’s vision for “regime change” carried out to perfection — one that also resulted in renewed cooperation from the target nation in the aftermath, benefiting the United States through new oil and gold agreements.

In other words, this was a “regime change” operation that the vast majority of Americans are surely pleased with.  Therefore, if one were to bet on which route this war takes, the money would more likely be on the opposite of another never-ending ground invasion being speculated on, given the president’s well documented foreign policy track record.

Putting America FIRST on the Global Stage

Trump believes that these actions clearly qualify as putting America first and are consistent with how he has always conducted military operations — both during his first term and in the actions taken this term prior to the Iranian strikes.  His foreign policy, which many are now referring to as the “Donroe Doctrine,” continues to showcase his “Peace through Strength” approach, which has never been pacifistic or isolationist.  Rather, it demonstrates American military prowess to deter hostile action from adversaries while remaining ready to act decisively if necessary.  It also emphasizes addressing present threats while keeping an eye on the future.

As the president recently signaled, this is not about taking minimal risks only to kick the can down the road for future U.S. presidents to deal with.  It is about permanently eliminating the threat now, which, if successful, will create a more stable playing field in the future while providing a blueprint for Trump’s successors to follow in order to continue putting America first.

This is not at all different from how Trump has used leverage in all other negotiations — military or otherwise — throughout both of his terms in office.  The risk of unintended escalation may be greater with Iran than with other nations, but the modus operandi that produced countless peace agreements in his first term and ended eight conflicts (and counting) in his current term is consistent and far from a broken campaign promise.

Making AMERICA Great Again

The final prevalent — but easily disprovable — claim circulating is that Trump is more concerned with making Israel great than with making America great, and that he was cajoled into striking the Iranian regime.  Trump has addressed these claims directly, noting that he may have been the one to force Israel’s hand, not the other way around.  In reality, Trump’s Iran operation aligns perfectly with his long-term plan to solidify American dominance internationally, which alone is enough to discredit this narrative, though many other examples exist.

Trump’s stance on Iran long predates his presidency (and by extension, any relationship he had with Israel) and stretches as far back as the 1980s, following the Iranian hostage crisis.  Since becoming president, he has continued to oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions, reimposed sanctions after withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal, and maintained pressure on the Iranians to agree to a denuclearization deal.  Throughout the early to mid-2010s, well before he even announced his candidacy, Trump’s Twitter feed was filled with posts articulating his consistent stance: that Iran must end its targeting of U.S. citizens, stop funding terrorism, and never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.  All of these tweets (now on X) still exist today.

In addition to his outlook on Iran remaining consistent, since Trump became president, the Iranian regime has made numerous direct threats on his life.  One included a highly detailed video simulating a drone infiltrating Trump’s Mar-a-Lago golf course and carrying out a strike while he teed off.  The regime has also allegedly funded hitmen to attempt his assassination.  Threats to any U.S. official — especially the president — represent a direct danger to the safety and security of the nation and demand immediate action.  The president has an obligation to protect the country from all threats, particularly when he himself is the target.  Trump even mentioned on the campaign trail that if he were the sitting president and a candidate were threatened by a foreign nation (as he was at the time), he would take action to protect a U.S. official, even if he were running against him.

Trump’s statement following the successful strike on Khamenei — that “he got him before he got me” — clearly demonstrates that his actions were at least partially prompted by the regime’s longstanding desire for his demise.  Reducing all of this to the claim that “Trump is doing Israel’s bidding” is an asinine viewpoint, as it ignores evidence of Trump’s own long held views on Iran.

A significant part of most political calculations revolves around elections, yet Trump appears to act according to what he believes is right, regardless of potential political ramifications.  Wars concern voters at any time, but they attract even more attention during a midterm year.  If anything were to go even slightly awry, the incumbent party would suffer — particularly given the challenge of retaining total control when one party holds both the House and Senate.  There is also a risk to his overall legacy.  One of the main reasons he soared in popularity during the 2016 election cycle was his criticism of the “forever” wars Americans were desperate to see ended.  The president is keenly aware of these factors, which makes his decision carry even more weight.

The influencers Trump has successfully dubbed “panicans,” who do not have access to the information Trump possesses, claim to know everything while consistently arriving at the most negative, worst-case conclusions.  Each time they assert that a new Trump action will “cost him the midterms,” they quietly admit they have been wrong, because if their predictions were accurate, they would maintain that the midterms were already lost rather than insisting that each new development will be his undoing.  They have lost all credibility.

Nobody would suggest — especially in the aftermath of the COVID misinformation era, when secret government information was hidden or weaponized to control the public — that people should “trust the experts” ever again.  Trump, however, has demonstrated expertise in this area (among many others) and has more than earned the benefit of the doubt.  He firmly believes that a new era of peace cannot be attained by slapping Band-Aids on decades-long problems, which is why he is attempting to permanently resolve never-ending conflicts once and for all.  High risk, yes — but also potentially astronomically high reward.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.