Israel’s all-out attack on the nuclear weapons infrastructure and leadership of Iran has created a historic choice: Will Israel be allowed to defeat decisively the existential threat long posed by the tyrannical Iranian regime both to her people, and ours—and thereby usher in an era of potential strategic stability aligned with Western civilization that the Middle East and the free world have rarely known?
Or will the United States interfere, as it has done consistently in the past, to prevent such a clear-cut victory—and thereby ensure that Israel’s enemies, and ours, live to fight another day?
The answer is essentially up to President Donald Trump. How he comes down may depend on whether he is being properly informed of the options and opportunities versus their associated risks. Or is he being disserved by those who profess to speak for the America First movement, but actually seem to be putting Iran First and Qatar First?
“Well, considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America First,’ and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along, I think I’m the one that decides that. For those people who say they want peace—you can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon.
“So, for all of those wonderful people who don’t want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon—that’s not peace.”
Presumably, that clarity will translate into further support for Israel’s comprehensive take-down of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and its destruction of Iran’s capacity to fight on thanks to surviving second- and third-tier regime leadership—many of whom are reputed to be even more psychopathic and apocalyptic than those more senior clerics and officers thankfully neutralized to date.
Whether that is true may depend on the quality of the advice President Trump is receiving. In addition to non-official influencers and political commentators, he may be getting bad advice from an intelligence community that wrongly contends Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and others who portray themselves as “nationalists,” “realists” and champions of “restraint.”
In fact, they are advocating a formula for a truly endless war in the Middle East. Stopping Israel from finishing the job—whether by cutting off the supply of weapons it requires to prosecute the war or by otherwise interfering with its pursuit—will mean that some residual nuclear program remains in the hands of Sharia supremacists who remain and are determined to destroy both Israel and the United States. The U.S. military will inevitably be required to contend with the calamity that will follow.
In other words, instead of an exemplary application of the Trump Doctrine, whereby our allies are strong and able decisively to defend their interests, and ours, in their dangerous neighborhoods with U.S. support (e.g., defensive support, intelligence, access to munitions, and political cover) but not direct, offensive engagement—we would have a true and costly quagmire.
This is a time when Trump must have access to his best military advice from Joint Chiefs Chairman General Daniel “Razin” Caine and Central Command’s General Michael “Erik” Kurilla about both the opportunities, as well as the risks, associated with Israel having the time, wherewithal, and diplomatic leeway to pursue successfully a decisive victory.
Not least, the president is entitled to hear that the utter destruction of the Chinese communists’ most important regional ally by ours is arguably the single most important step we can take at the moment to deter their aggression elsewhere. It may even translate into a decision on the part of members of the BRICS—especially South Africa—that it is not in their interest to advance the group’s agenda of taking down the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
