In its Nov. 7 opinion section, The New York Times published a full-page piece on what the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress should do. Titled “8 Bold Ideas to Fix America,” the article included topics like housing, lower prices and the future of artificial intelligence.
No. 4 on the list? End the Iran war.
The analysis by military and national security writer W.J. Hennigan was short but not sweet. The Iranians have found a way to confound us, he asserted, and everything our military has thrown at the regime has barely moved the needle.
This brief, superficial analysis says nothing about the prospect of a world overshadowed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Nor does it address the threat to the entire region from Iranian proxies—Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas and militias in Iraq—heavily armed with rockets, missiles and drones, either locally manufactured or acquired from Russia.
There is not a word about America’s allies in the region threatened by and under attack from Iran. Nor is there any mention of the Iranian people and the array of human-rights abuses they have suffered at the hands of the regime.
Although Hennigan’s advice does not state the conclusion directly, it is clear that he embraces the defeatist belief that opposing Iran is pointless, so we should get out—now.
This is precisely what the Iranian regime wants. In the 47 years since the Islamic Revolution, the regime has bullied its way to a “can’t live with them but can’t live without them” status that has always given Tehran a free pass.
Iran has mastered the art of kicking the diplomatic can down the road while leading a gullible or fearful West to believe that reconciliation is just around the corner because Iran does not want to be an international pariah. It has played us for fools time and again, and is trying to do so once more.
How can we explain the reluctance to confront the Iranian threat? Much of it stems from rising neo-isolationism, which promotes an “America is an island” perspective unseen in the United States for eight decades.
There are generational issues at play, as well. Nearly five decades on, a new group of politicians, diplomats and journalists who were not even born or were children when the regime took power are assuming positions of influence in Congress, think tanks and the media.
Little historical memory remains of Tehran’s reign of terror.
This rampage began with the arrest, torture and execution of those deemed disloyal to the new regime. After consolidating power, the regime turned to overt aggression: seizing the American Embassy and taking hostages; attacking a Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemen; attacking U.S. servicemen at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador at Washington’s Cafe Milano; using thousands of roadside bombs that killed hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq; and seeking to assassinate U.S. President Donald Trump.
Throughout, it was developing a clandestine nuclear program.
How can we explain the reluctance to confront the Iranian threat?
Nonetheless, Iran has been continuously let off the hook.
Former President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, frequently cited by political candidates as proof that diplomacy can work with Iran, had a built-in flaw.
At best, it offered the West a decade of relief from Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon, though many critics expected the regime to proceed covertly anyway. Even if Trump had not withdrawn from the agreement during his first term, that 10-year interval would have ended a year ago.
The White House rightly made a strategic decision to stop Iran’s march to nuclear weapons before it was too late.
However, one vital element was missing: a presidential speech laying out the case for war. Some would not have been convinced. Many more Americans, however, presented with the laundry list of Iran’s crimes against the United States, would have agreed.
Still, the failure to deliver a national address before the war began does not invalidate the choice to challenge Iran. On the contrary, the initial two weeks of the war suggested progress by striking the regime’s leadership tier, missile production and nuclear program. The Iranian public—those not slaughtered in January during anti-regime protests—watched and waited.
But then the brakes were applied, starting with a premature ceasefire. That was followed by predictable failed attempts at doing a deal with some of the world’s most brazen liars.
The casual attitude among many political figures, journalists and TV commentators who dismiss or ignore the danger from Iran is still mystifying. For example, well-respected Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) stated plainly, “Iran poses no imminent threat to the United States.”
The word “imminent” can be parsed, but there can be no doubt that if Iran succeeds in acquiring nuclear weapons and the ability to deploy them far enough to reach the United States, the threat will be literally imminent.
Why wait to see what happens?
The issue is not the Iran war itself, but that the war remains unfinished. Tehran’s leadership is determined to survive. The regime aims not merely to live another day but to advance toward a nuclear weapon, redrawing the regional and global geostrategic map. This, it believes, will ensure its survival.
Instead of hoping that they can simply erase the most vexing international issue confronting American leadership, The New York Times and its writers should be worrying about what to do about it, rather than retreating from it.
