War With Iran Is a Path to Destruction
Have we learned nothing from our adventures in
interventionism?
Apr 2, 2025
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/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.