War With Iran Is a Path to Destruction

Donald Trump rode into office—twice now—on a wave of promises to upend the Washington consensus, to drain the swamp of its self-serving mandarins and to keep America out of endless wars. His base cheered when he skewered the neoconservative architects of Iraq and Afghanistan, wars that bled our Treasury, and most importantly, many of our sons for little more than bragging rights in Beltway and Tel Aviv salons. Yet here we are, in the early days of his second term, with whispers growing louder from the usual suspects: advisors and hangers-on nudging him toward a strike on Iran, peddling the old lie that it’ll be quick, clean, and simple. History, that stern teacher we keep ignoring, tells us otherwise. Yet the hawks in the Trump administration appear to be anxious to wreck another country, which would join the long, recurring tragedy of U.S.-caused failed countries in the Middle East.

The pitch is familiar, isn’t it? A swift blow—maybe a few airstrikes on Tehran’s nuclear sites or a green light for Israel to do the dirty work—and the mullahs will crumble, the region will stabilize, and we’ll be home by Easter. It’s the same tune the warmongers hummed in 1914, when Europe’s leaders promised their boys would be back from the trenches by Christmas. These are also the same deceptions we heard in 2003, when Iraq was sold as a “cakewalk”—a war that would pay for itself with oil and gratitude. Millions of lives and trillions of dollars later, we’re still witnessing that tragedy.

The U.S. has been either directly bombing or participating in bombing the Houthis on and off since 2015. Why should we believe the war cheerleaders that this time will be more successful?

Iran is not Iraq circa 2003, nor is it some tinpot dictatorship ripe for a Predator-drone makeover. It’s a 3,000-year-old culture with a population of 85 million, rugged as the Zagros Mountains, with a military hardened by decades of sanctions, assassinations, military attacks, cyber attacks, proxy wars, and constant threats from top leaders of Israel and the U.S. to destroy their country. The Islamic Republic has spent years preparing for this very fight—dispersing its assets, fortifying its defenses, and cultivating allies from Hezbollah to the Houthis. A strike wouldn’t be a surgical snip; it’d be kicking a hornet’s nest with no apparent interest in an exit strategy. Yet the war hawk advisers circling Trump—some recycled from the Bush era, others eager to prove their toughness—seem unworried about the chaos they’d unleash. Chaos has been their game for decades.

Let’s play this out. Day one: bombs fall, targets burn, and the cable news chyrons scream victory. Day two: Iran retaliates—maybe with missiles on U.S. bases in Qatar or shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, whence a fifth of the world’s oil flows. Day three: oil prices spike, markets tank, and suddenly we’re not talking about a “limited operation” anymore. Hezbollah rains rockets on Tel Aviv, the Houthis blockade the Red Sea, and militia groups in Iraq and Syria start targeting American troops again. Before you know it, we’re waist-deep in another quagmire, with the same generals and pundits who botched the last three wars demanding more troops, more money, and more time. Sound familiar? Lyndon Johnson followed that advice, descended into infamy, and had to exit politics.

The hawks will scoff at this. Like they’ve done for decades, they’ll say Iran’s on the verge of collapse, it’s a paper tiger, that deterrence demands action, that Trump must show strength. They’ll invoke Reagan or Thatcher, forgetting that both knew when to hold fire. But strength isn’t measured by how many bombs you drop—it’s knowing when to walk away from a bad bet. Trump, at his best, gets this. He resisted the full-court press to bomb Syria into oblivion after Assad’s alleged chemical weapons stunts. He talked Kim Jong Un down from the ledge without firing a shot. He’s not a pacifist, but he’s no fool either. So why let the same clique that cheered on the Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria fiascoes steer him into this buzz saw?  

The main problem is the company he keeps. The swamp didn’t drain—it got a new guest list. Some of these advisers see Iran as a trophy, a chance to flex America’s muscles and settle old scores. Others are tethered to foreign capitals—Riyadh, Jerusalem—that would love to see us do their bidding and wreck Iran. 

America has followed the neoconservative Zionists’ foreign policy desires for decades. Every one of their wars ends up killing, wounding, and starving hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Millions are homeless. The target countries become dysfunctional, creating generations of new enemies. The narrative is the same: They say a leader is hurting his people. He is worse than Hitler and he must go. But the warmongers are unapologetic about the disastrous results such as warlords running Libya and Afghanistan, and the chaos and destruction in Iraq. Now that the “horrible” Assad is gone, a dressed-up Al Qaeda is running Syria. How is that not alarming? Our government enabled and supported that destruction for years.

The Christian Zionists are not crying out about the two-millennia-old Christian communities, which are being driven out of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Israel as a result of the wars they have supported. No apologies here either.

Is it possible that the warmongers calling for the attacks on Iran would be perfectly satisfied leaving a mess like the other countries they have caused us to attack? How is that in America's interest?

They’re not thinking about the young Americans who will bear the brunt when the “cakewalk” turns into a slog. They’re thinking about their political masters, not Americans in the flyover country.  

Conservatives used to understand this. They were the ones who questioned the hubris of nation-building, who saw war as a last resort, not a first reflex. Robert Taft and Dwight Eisenhower didn’t fetishize military overreach; they knew it bankrupted nations and eroded liberty. Along the way, we let the neocons and their ilk hijack the movement, turning “peace through strength” into “war for applause.” President Trump’s first term hinted at a return to that older wisdom. His second could cement it—or squander it on Iran’s altar.  

The president should listen to his gut, not his courtiers. He’s a dealmaker, not a warlord. He knows the art of the bluff, and the power of walking away. Iran is no angel—its ambitions troubling—but it’s not an existential threat to America requiring a preemptive strike. Diplomacy worked with the Soviets; it can work here. War, though? War is the wildcard that breaks everything.  

So here’s the request, Mr. President: don’t buy the dishonest hype. Don’t let the warmongers’ desire to wreck another country be your guide. You ran against the forever wars—don’t start another one. America wants jobs, borders, sanity—not body bags and budget deficits. History is littered with failed leaders who thought war was simple. It never is, particularly when it is fomented by people who do not prioritize American interests. You know them by their fruits.