Iran War: Insubordination Stands To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

American Thinker 

The U.S. media has tabled a question that warrants examining two 20th-century historical events.

The question asked is whether U.S. credibility in deterring Iran’s mullahs and getting them to toe the line has been weakened by critics such as comedian Jimmy Kimmel and politicians who mock or otherwise criticize President Donald Trump’s actions against Tehran.

The first historical event involves a battle of the Cold War, fought against the Soviet Union on February 22, 1980.

While this battle resulted in American blood being shed, it was not due to a military conflict but to an athletic one. It was fought on the ice as the U.S. and Soviet Union competed for the gold medal in hockey at the 1980 Winter Olympics game in Lake Placid, New York. The Soviets fielded a four-time gold medal winning team against a U.S. team composed of a mix of college players.

During the 20-year period of 1960–1980, the Soviets had not only run up a 12-0 record playing against U.S. hockey teams, but outscored them by a whopping 117-26 points. And, just three days prior to the beginning of the 1980 Winter Olympics, the Soviets badly defeated the U.S. in an exhibition hockey game by a score of 10-3.

It was clearly a contest in which David faced Goliath. Yet the U.S. would win 4-3 in what became known as the “Miracle on Ice” and what Sports Illustrated ranked in 1999 as the top sports moment of the 20th century.

Post-game analysis shared a factor that empowered a U.S. win against all odds. It noted the contest was fueled by intense national pride and support as fans created an electrifying atmosphere, boosting player morale. Fans effectively were “one” with the players, fostering a sense of belief that victory was indeed attainable.

The second historical event occurred in 1968 during the Vietnam war. In January, despite a routine truce during the Vietnamese Tet (Lunar) holiday, the Viet Cong (VC) launched multiple attacks against American and South Vietnamese forces. Despite being caught by surprise, the U.S. inflicted devastating casualties upon the VC.

In writing a book about the war, I had the opportunity to interview the commander of the VC forces, General Tran Van Tra. He shared with me that, so extensive were his losses, he believed it was necessary to seek an end to the war. However, to his astonishment, as well as that of other senior leaders, they were shocked to hear that the U.S. media was reporting the Tet offensive as a defeat for America, and surprised to learn that an anti-war movement was gaining steam. The news caused North Vietnam to recommit itself to defeating the U.S.

The above historical events tell us two things.

First, the Miracle on Ice tells us what is possible to achieve when Americans band together in support of the same team.

Second, as Tra’s interview revealed, victory can easily turn into defeat if Americans, failing to fully understand situational issues, choose to oppose an issue by simply accepting a media viewpoint, harboring its own agenda, brainwashing them into rejecting reality.

Where foreign policy issues are concerned, such as with Iran, a sign of political division always creates a weakness for diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. This has been underscored not only by Kimmel’s jokes but by the comments of various leaders of the Democrat party, like those of Senator Mark Kelly and former Vice President Kamala Harris. The latter, as a presidential candidate in 2024, said all options were on the table to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear armed—only now to criticize the option Trump selected.

Ultimately, it was political division and an uninformed anti-war movement that forced an end to the Vietnam war, leaving millions of Vietnamese subject to communism. Both of the aforementioned factors contributed to the enemy’s resolve, even though he was militarily on the ropes, to continue the fight. He was fueled by the knowledge America’s domestic division could only benefit him in attaining victory or in negotiating a more favorable deal. We were so close to honoring, with a hard-fought victory, the 58,000+ American lives lostbut, in the end, sacrificed such an outcome.

Wartime unity among our politicians, comedians and the people is all important—not only in keeping our military motivated to see the mission through to a successful end but to drive the point home to the enemy there is nothing to be gained by drawing the conflict out.

With Iran, a successful end to the war involves the destruction of a brutal theocracy. People need to understand a telling fact about the country the media largely ignores, making nothing short of a regime change acceptable.

The reality a nuclear-armed Iran will bring to world stability should be evident by the mullahs’ unabashed record that rivals the worst of nations based on the executions of their own people, hitting a nine-year high in 2024. But let the thought sink in that if the mullahs act so brutally both inside and out their borders today, sans a nuclear arsenal, what are they capable of should they acquire one?

Iran is in a devastating spiral as far as its leadership and economy are concerned, while the U.S. offensive has effectively neutered its military. However, as far as a final U.S. victory goes, just as in an athletic competition, the lack of continuing support to see the war through to its conclusion can rob the victor of a win.

In 1993, the NFL’s visiting Houston Oilers led the Buffalo Bills by a score of 35-3 in the third quarter of a professional football playoff game. The Oilers snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, losing in overtime 41-38 as the hometown crowd pumped new life into their team.

Similarly, the more the media promotes its agenda rather than the facts and the more Trump critics focus on political gamesmanship rather than on defeating Iran, the more likely we too will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.