U.S. vs. Iran: Escalation Is Long Overdue

The protection of the individual rights of Americans from foreign aggression requires decisively crippling the Islamic Republic once and for all.

As an adherent of a “Think Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right” foreign policy, it’s often excruciating and sometimes sadly laughable to watch the U.S. foreign policy establishment squirming like a worm on a fishhook. One gets the impression that the number one qualification for a job at the State Department is the ability to take something that ought to be pretty straight forward and make it as complex as possible. Case in point: our handling of the country that occupies the north shores of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman: the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

In an ideal world, the U.S. shouldn’t have to take an interest in a faraway country like Iran. However, Iran has for a long time taken an unfriendly interest in us, making it impossible to ignore. One could argue that Iran has a valid grievance because of our misguided Cold War effort to support the British in overturning its government in 1953 to reduce supposed communist influences and prevent the nationalization of British oil interests. But like it or not, that’s water under the bridge.  

Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution turned the country into a totalitarian fundamentalist Islamist republic, its explicit “foreign policy” goal has been the “death to Israel” as a first step towards establishing Islam as the world’s dominant religion. Anybody who stands in the way is fair game. This naturally includes Israel’s nominal ally and protector the United States —“The Great Satan”—which has been a thorn in the side of the ruling theocrats since they seized power. 

Since the revolution, Iran’s policy towards the U.S. has been one of “poking” and retreating. Iran operates from a position of weakness. It’s a poor country that is getting poorer by the day, and its military capacity is limited and outdated, especially compared to that of both Israel and the United States. The pattern is to launch an attack, sometimes directly, but more often through a proxy such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen, and watch what happens. Typically, the U.S. reacts with word salads condemning the attack, temporarily halts some negotiation or other, or responds with a level of force that wouldn’t deter a three-year old. Things settle down for a while, until Iran feels secure enough to orchestrate the next round of attacks. This rinse-and-repeat charade has been going on for 40+ years now, ever since Ronald Reagan negotiated the Iran hostage release without any major direct retributions for Iran. 

Iran “standing up” to the U.S. and repeatedly getting away with it has encouraged others. It’s successful defiance of the U.S. and our weak response to its direct or proxy terrorist support has served as ideological inspiration and motivation for fundamentalist Islamist movements around the world: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, PLO, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and many others. And it has emboldened other Middle East countries in their ideological and financial support of such groups. For example, unbelievable as it may seem, Qatar is as of writing this harboring the Hamas leadership without any apparent repercussions from the U.S.  

The U.S. leniency towards Iran has resulted in the growth of fundamentalist totalitarian Islamism. Wars have been fought against the wrong enemy—Afghanistan and Iraq—instead of striking at the ideological core, Iran. The leniency has resulted in the unnecessary and meaningless loss of American lives. And it has cost the American tax-payer billions of dollars with zilch return on investment. 

Can anything be done to right the ship? Yes, but it requires a fundamental realignment of the purpose of our foreign policy—and, by extension, military—to protecting the individual rights of Americans from foreign aggression. Not spreading democracy, not solving world hunger, not being the sacrificial policeman of the world where no American interests are present.  

Islamism is an explicit threat to our individual rights as its goal is a world dominated by fundamentalist, totalitarian Islamic theocracy. What does this mean with respect to Iran? Escalation. The U.S. should say enough is enough and with immediate effect take out all Iranian military installations, and the country’s oil and gas production, refining and shipping capacity (oil and gas export is the its main source of foreign currency). This would be an engagement without troops on the ground. Yes, there will be some loss of American life and material, but overall Iran’s armed forces won’t stand a chance against U.S. military might. The objective is not to invade, not to make Iran “safe for democracy,” but to cripple, demoralize, and send a message to the Iranian regime that America means business; that when we perceive a direct or indirect threat to the individual rights of Americans, we will act decisively. 

Escalation and a determined show of overwhelming force against Iran will have other positive effects:  

• Iran’s proxies in the region will be instantly defanged. Yes, Houthis and Hesbollah and Hamas and the like may rattle some sabers, but knowing that their life support has been cutoff, they will retreat to the shadows (the mopping up can be left to Israel). 

• Fundamentalist, totalitarian Islamism will be dealt a decisive blow as Iran’s role as ideological inspiration and motivation will be severely curtailed.  

• Dictators and authoritarians around the world will take notice. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will not come to Iran’s aid; defending Iran is not worth going toe-to-toe with American military might. They will of course offer denunciations, but facing an American show of determination and strength, they will reevaluate their own expansionist plans in the Middle East and elsewhere (Ukraine, Taiwan, etc.). 

• Freedom movements around the world, including Iran’s own at home and abroad, will take immense inspiration and courage from America’s show of strength and the pressure will start to build on not only Islamist but all authoritarian regimes around the world, and political change for the better will follow.  

All of the above will have a calming effect on world politics and trade and reassert the U.S.’s position as a champion of the protection of individual rights of its own people, and by extension, result in improved protection of individual rights for all. 

Unfortunately, with the current philosophical, moral, and political climate in the U.S., none of this is likely to happen anytime soon. Due to the lack of clarity of what a foreign policy should achieve, we will on the one hand continue to see increased threats due to our lack of committed support of our true allies around the world such as Israel and Ukraine. And on the other, we will see dollars wasted—and more American lives lost—on half-hearted, misguided campaigns—and perhaps wars—without clear goals of victory. Until the American public understands what’s at stake and start to put pressure on its elected representatives to protect our individual rights against foreign aggressors, we will continue to muddle along to the detriment of all. 

2/4/2024 correction: The original post incorrectly stated 1951 as the year the U.S. supported the British in overturning the Iranian government.