I have lived my entire life under the threat of nuclear attack. We did drills in elementary school. We watched B52s do low level runs over our playground. As a high school teacher I had students (southern Arizona) express fear as they learned that area was the #3 target in the US. I watched as the Titan II missiles were removed as part of the SALT treaties. It seemed hopeful when the USSR collapsed until one had to think…”what will happen to all their nukes?” MAD has been the primary philosophy of our military since 1946. Has it worked? To a degree, yes. But it doesn’t represent or deter the very real problem. The problem that seems to make nukes necessary in the first place. The willingness of man to resort to killing each other to settle whatever their issues are. To kill each other because of grandiose grabs at power. To kill each other because of egos and weak minds. It’s always a more difficult pathway to sit down and talk. To compromise. To reach agreements. It’s sad that parts of mankind don’t have the moral or mental capability to work towards a common good and instead threaten our very existence.
I knew the big picture: The International community lost its center when the USA abdicated its role as the leader of the free world. Now it’s a free-for-all.
We must elect leaders that Wage Peace not War.
Thank you (?) for the details.
One thing stood out to me: “Israeli-led offensive that targeted multiple nuclear installations and killed at least 14 nuclear scientists.”
My personal interest in the "Middle East", like many who were coming of age in the late 1970's was precipitated by the Iranian Revolution/Hostage Crisis. At the time, my knowledge was surface level, and provided solely by American media. As a true red, white and blue young American man...I was incensed by the behavior of the Ayatollah and the Iranian people.
A couple of years later, my sentiments towards the revolutionaries softened (some) when I had the opportunity to work in an industry that employed several Middle Eastern 'dissidents,' including individuals from Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. All had left their home countries due to the continued upheaval in the region. From them, I learned the *whys* of the conflict, and the taking of U.S. hostages from the 'people's' perspective. While the tactics of the Ayatollah, et. al. were mostly admonished by my new friends--it was easy to now understand the motive.
It would be another six years before I would begin my undergraduate work in Social Studies/History. My interest in the Middle East continued throughout that time, along with (coincidentally) President Truman's decision to use atomic weapons against an enemy. These two topics, along with an emphasis in Religious studies, brings me to today's article.
In my opinion (which is just that...'opinion') before jumping to conclusions about right-or-wrong regarding the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, we must allow an evolution of thought.
If this were 1979-80, and we were in the midst of those horrific 444 days of the Hostage Crisis, there's no doubt that sentiment among U.S. citizens would be nearly unanimous: "Bomb the sh** out of 'em!"
Jump ahead a couple of years, and with the successful overthrow of the U.S. supported Shah, and reinstatement of Iran's Ayatollah (Theocracy)...learned folks and scholars advised that U.S. policy must move (with caution) toward diplomacy with Iran, in much the same way as with Russia and 'Cold War' policy. Recognize the reality of the Revolution's outcome, and a *popular* regime. Political sentiments among U.S. citizens at this time were mostly mixed. Personally, I fell on the side of "cautious diplomacy."
Now, let's look at Iran's political and social history since the time of the Revolution. We cannot ignore the fact that many (dare I say most) of the Iranian people who advocated for the overthrow of the Shah, and the Ayatollah's return...now have some regret. In 1979, their motives were primarily based on a return to traditional Islamic (religious) rule. Of course, it didn't help that the Shah--and his secret police--was a brutal leader. However, now that the Ayatollah(s) have held power for more than forty-years, their true colors have substantiated the adage, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Many in Iran are disillusioned.
Here's the paradox that Iran, Israel, and primarily the U.S. face today. The Iranian people are primed for regime change. And, any attempt at such MUST be internal, and driven by popular support. And, regime change in Iran would probably be a huge step toward peace in the region. However, the governments of the three nations mentioned above are stuck in the "Crusades." Two theocracies (Iran: Islamic; Israel: Jewish) pursuing complete annihilation of the other...with the U.S. (Christian theocratic wannabe) trying to play in the middle.
So, where does that place us today...as in July 1, 2025?
After everything I've written here, I may have implied that the U.S. should back off, and move in the direction of diplomatic neutrality that fosters peace; no military action on the part of the U.S. However, this does not take into account the 'diplomatic' history of Iran's current regime. It has proven to be wholly untrustworthy. We must realize that Iran's ultimate goal remains: "Annihilate Israel" (along with becoming the major power broker in the Middle East). They still chant "death to America!" for it's support of Israel. Based on this political and social construct--Iran cannot possess a nuclear weapon. Period.
Again--where does that leave us today? First...I DO NOT personally agree with the U.S.'s decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Doing so has eliminated any possibility that the Iranian people will rise up and force regime change. A second revolution depended on the people of Iran disagreeing with their government's stance on Israel. U.S. strikes have emboldened the Iranian people to now support the current regime. So...the U.S. did strike Iran. That ship has sailed. However, our best evidence is that the strikes were not adequate to meet the objective. We must now finish the job.
Once it is duly confirmed that Iran will recover its nuclear weapons program in relatively short order--the U.S. must strike again. The instability of Iran's government, and ill actions and intentions demand it. And, due to the fact that the U.S. has now shown that we will 'strike'...Iran is more motivated than ever to recover--and cross the line. Unfortunately, the U.S. is the only country on the planet that possesses the capability to stop that from happening.
It’s very ironic how the whole isolationist, inward-looking American First mindset can lead to such a serious and potentially catastrophic cascade of events all around the world. Makes one wish there were smart, forward-thinking, strategically-oriented people running the country.
Unless I missed it, the author has failed to consider what plausibly makes Iran unique among all nations possessing or seeking nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a uniquely irrational actor. They have demonstrated this by diverting their wealth and subsidizing fanatical proxies not simply to destroy Israel but to put it precisely to persist and act on the belief embraced by Palestinians that, after decades of failed Arab attempts to create a single Palestinian state in the former British Mandate when Palestinians have rejected many opportunities to choose to be one of two states, instead of admitting failure and moving on as all the other Arab states have quietly done, the Palestinians persist in this goal which can only result in additional failure and bloodshed, largely their own. The Islamic Republic attaches itself to this irrationality as also a means to some imagined Islamic state in the Middle East.
The unique madness of the Islamic Republic is why American Presidents back to Clinton have asserted that The Islamic Republic cannot have a nuclear weapon. They might not use it, but, they could like Putin discourage opposition to its expansionism by possessing it even knowing Israel has it. Israeli and US vigilance in preventing military recovery and financial sanctions until the regime is changed or evolves seems a wise course and will likely be followed by future US administrations, just as Biden chose not to resurrect the JCPOA which would only have opened the cash spigot to fuel the Ayatollah's bloody ambitions.
I think Biden’s motivations were more domestically-political in nature in regards to reinstating the JCPOA. It would not have played well in the media for Biden’s admin to be negotiating with the government that imprisoned and killed Mahsa Amini.
As to the “irrationality” of Palestinian motivations, I think it’s entirely rational to want land back that you believe is rightfully yours (is that not what Israeli motivations are as well?) Whether it is helpful to Palestinian survival to continue that path is perhaps worth questioning when Israel has made their intentions clear. But your bias toward Israeli motives over Palestinian motives is pretty clear in your commentary.
It's reasonable to speculate that I'm biased towards and uncritical of Israel because my comment is focussed on why it's uniquely reasonable to deny Iran the bomb. We should all admire the effort to be unbiased, a good example of which is your assertion that it's rational for Palestinians to believe their people have been treated unjustly but at the same to question whether restoring status quo ante is worth it (or sane or just, I would add).
We are not credible if we are biased in asserting factual, but even ethical, truths. This is true now more than ever in a world in which advocacy seems a higher virtue than objectivity. People that know me know that I think Israel has been callous about human lives in Gaza. This is regardless of the moral depravity indeed moral insanity of their opponents. Hamas was not a sufficient threat to Israel's existence to justify these civilian deaths. Even Hamas knows its only weapon is the martyrdom of their own people. There were other, no doubt slower but more humane ways.
Nevertheless the cruelest act which perpetuates this endless war is the world's unwillingness to tell the Palestinians and their allies that the only justice for them is to stop living in the past and move on. The Arab states and even the community of Columbia University can do this. Iran's current regime seems incapable.
Okay, but why must we tell the Palestinians to move on? I get your point from a purely logical level ("Israel has big bombs so they'll win" is, I suppose, the argument), but humans are not logical beings. We are emotional. And Palestinians have just as much an emotional claim to their land as to the Israelis. Quite frankly, it feels very much like telling the Native Americans to "move on" from the way their lands were stolen. Meanwhile, the reason Native American tribes are generally not thriving in America is solely because we forced them to move on after stripping them of their resources. Sure, Palestinians can "move on"... to what, though? What resources are they being granted in order to thrive anywhere else. And for what purpose? So that Israelis (or heaven forbid, Trump) can have prime ocean-front real estate? It all just seems to me to be very callous and completely devoid of the empathy and emotion that powers the entirety of human motivation.
I apologize if this sounds condescending, but, your intellectual honesty makes you vulnerable to reason. It is "logical", as you say, not to fight battles you can't win but which only spill innocent blood IF you have the alternative of living in peace and prosperity. But does that demonstrate a lack of empathy as you suggest or the opposite? You can list reasons why these are not exactly the circumstances presented to Palestinians at this time. There is a list at least equally as long of why these circumstance are the determining ones. Both lists are adroit and deep dive into history. One fact that makes this choice less obvious is that Palestinian and Arab government resistance has made the choice less attractive over the decades. Nevertheless, I think it's indisputable the choice is still the only sane future for the Palestinian who is not in the elite or able to emigrate. I bet the Arab governments are only being coy about the fact that they are ready to move on.
People over the millenia have had to make this choice to survive and often prosper. This includes the indigenous people of cultures which were technologically completely incompatible with those that replaced them. More recent examples are the Greeks and Armenians of Turkey and the Eastern European Germans after WWII. Even more recent are the Provisional IRA of Northern Ireland. Many were treated badly, worse than the Palestinians. They didn't accept defeat. They accepted reality.
Golda Meir is said to have said "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." I'm sure an honest Palestinian has good reason to be enraged at an element of facile hypocrisy in this statement, but, it still is truth, if difficult to accept. Time to move on and stop listening to crazy people like Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Time also for the Iranians to dump the latter.
Addendum (sorry): Moving on does not mean not having and expressing legitimate grievances. It is from a place where one can survive and thrive without debilitating hatred. If anything, it might make those complaints more credible. If not, it matters less.
I have lived my entire life under the threat of nuclear attack. We did drills in elementary school. We watched B52s do low level runs over our playground. As a high school teacher I had students (southern Arizona) express fear as they learned that area was the #3 target in the US. I watched as the Titan II missiles were removed as part of the SALT treaties. It seemed hopeful when the USSR collapsed until one had to think…”what will happen to all their nukes?” MAD has been the primary philosophy of our military since 1946. Has it worked? To a degree, yes. But it doesn’t represent or deter the very real problem. The problem that seems to make nukes necessary in the first place. The willingness of man to resort to killing each other to settle whatever their issues are. To kill each other because of grandiose grabs at power. To kill each other because of egos and weak minds. It’s always a more difficult pathway to sit down and talk. To compromise. To reach agreements. It’s sad that parts of mankind don’t have the moral or mental capability to work towards a common good and instead threaten our very existence.
I knew the big picture: The International community lost its center when the USA abdicated its role as the leader of the free world. Now it’s a free-for-all.
We must elect leaders that Wage Peace not War.
Thank you (?) for the details.
One thing stood out to me: “Israeli-led offensive that targeted multiple nuclear installations and killed at least 14 nuclear scientists.”
Thank you Elise.
My personal interest in the "Middle East", like many who were coming of age in the late 1970's was precipitated by the Iranian Revolution/Hostage Crisis. At the time, my knowledge was surface level, and provided solely by American media. As a true red, white and blue young American man...I was incensed by the behavior of the Ayatollah and the Iranian people.
A couple of years later, my sentiments towards the revolutionaries softened (some) when I had the opportunity to work in an industry that employed several Middle Eastern 'dissidents,' including individuals from Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. All had left their home countries due to the continued upheaval in the region. From them, I learned the *whys* of the conflict, and the taking of U.S. hostages from the 'people's' perspective. While the tactics of the Ayatollah, et. al. were mostly admonished by my new friends--it was easy to now understand the motive.
It would be another six years before I would begin my undergraduate work in Social Studies/History. My interest in the Middle East continued throughout that time, along with (coincidentally) President Truman's decision to use atomic weapons against an enemy. These two topics, along with an emphasis in Religious studies, brings me to today's article.
In my opinion (which is just that...'opinion') before jumping to conclusions about right-or-wrong regarding the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, we must allow an evolution of thought.
If this were 1979-80, and we were in the midst of those horrific 444 days of the Hostage Crisis, there's no doubt that sentiment among U.S. citizens would be nearly unanimous: "Bomb the sh** out of 'em!"
Jump ahead a couple of years, and with the successful overthrow of the U.S. supported Shah, and reinstatement of Iran's Ayatollah (Theocracy)...learned folks and scholars advised that U.S. policy must move (with caution) toward diplomacy with Iran, in much the same way as with Russia and 'Cold War' policy. Recognize the reality of the Revolution's outcome, and a *popular* regime. Political sentiments among U.S. citizens at this time were mostly mixed. Personally, I fell on the side of "cautious diplomacy."
Now, let's look at Iran's political and social history since the time of the Revolution. We cannot ignore the fact that many (dare I say most) of the Iranian people who advocated for the overthrow of the Shah, and the Ayatollah's return...now have some regret. In 1979, their motives were primarily based on a return to traditional Islamic (religious) rule. Of course, it didn't help that the Shah--and his secret police--was a brutal leader. However, now that the Ayatollah(s) have held power for more than forty-years, their true colors have substantiated the adage, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Many in Iran are disillusioned.
Here's the paradox that Iran, Israel, and primarily the U.S. face today. The Iranian people are primed for regime change. And, any attempt at such MUST be internal, and driven by popular support. And, regime change in Iran would probably be a huge step toward peace in the region. However, the governments of the three nations mentioned above are stuck in the "Crusades." Two theocracies (Iran: Islamic; Israel: Jewish) pursuing complete annihilation of the other...with the U.S. (Christian theocratic wannabe) trying to play in the middle.
So, where does that place us today...as in July 1, 2025?
After everything I've written here, I may have implied that the U.S. should back off, and move in the direction of diplomatic neutrality that fosters peace; no military action on the part of the U.S. However, this does not take into account the 'diplomatic' history of Iran's current regime. It has proven to be wholly untrustworthy. We must realize that Iran's ultimate goal remains: "Annihilate Israel" (along with becoming the major power broker in the Middle East). They still chant "death to America!" for it's support of Israel. Based on this political and social construct--Iran cannot possess a nuclear weapon. Period.
Again--where does that leave us today? First...I DO NOT personally agree with the U.S.'s decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Doing so has eliminated any possibility that the Iranian people will rise up and force regime change. A second revolution depended on the people of Iran disagreeing with their government's stance on Israel. U.S. strikes have emboldened the Iranian people to now support the current regime. So...the U.S. did strike Iran. That ship has sailed. However, our best evidence is that the strikes were not adequate to meet the objective. We must now finish the job.
Once it is duly confirmed that Iran will recover its nuclear weapons program in relatively short order--the U.S. must strike again. The instability of Iran's government, and ill actions and intentions demand it. And, due to the fact that the U.S. has now shown that we will 'strike'...Iran is more motivated than ever to recover--and cross the line. Unfortunately, the U.S. is the only country on the planet that possesses the capability to stop that from happening.
It’s very ironic how the whole isolationist, inward-looking American First mindset can lead to such a serious and potentially catastrophic cascade of events all around the world. Makes one wish there were smart, forward-thinking, strategically-oriented people running the country.
Unless I missed it, the author has failed to consider what plausibly makes Iran unique among all nations possessing or seeking nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a uniquely irrational actor. They have demonstrated this by diverting their wealth and subsidizing fanatical proxies not simply to destroy Israel but to put it precisely to persist and act on the belief embraced by Palestinians that, after decades of failed Arab attempts to create a single Palestinian state in the former British Mandate when Palestinians have rejected many opportunities to choose to be one of two states, instead of admitting failure and moving on as all the other Arab states have quietly done, the Palestinians persist in this goal which can only result in additional failure and bloodshed, largely their own. The Islamic Republic attaches itself to this irrationality as also a means to some imagined Islamic state in the Middle East.
The unique madness of the Islamic Republic is why American Presidents back to Clinton have asserted that The Islamic Republic cannot have a nuclear weapon. They might not use it, but, they could like Putin discourage opposition to its expansionism by possessing it even knowing Israel has it. Israeli and US vigilance in preventing military recovery and financial sanctions until the regime is changed or evolves seems a wise course and will likely be followed by future US administrations, just as Biden chose not to resurrect the JCPOA which would only have opened the cash spigot to fuel the Ayatollah's bloody ambitions.
I think Biden’s motivations were more domestically-political in nature in regards to reinstating the JCPOA. It would not have played well in the media for Biden’s admin to be negotiating with the government that imprisoned and killed Mahsa Amini.
As to the “irrationality” of Palestinian motivations, I think it’s entirely rational to want land back that you believe is rightfully yours (is that not what Israeli motivations are as well?) Whether it is helpful to Palestinian survival to continue that path is perhaps worth questioning when Israel has made their intentions clear. But your bias toward Israeli motives over Palestinian motives is pretty clear in your commentary.
It's reasonable to speculate that I'm biased towards and uncritical of Israel because my comment is focussed on why it's uniquely reasonable to deny Iran the bomb. We should all admire the effort to be unbiased, a good example of which is your assertion that it's rational for Palestinians to believe their people have been treated unjustly but at the same to question whether restoring status quo ante is worth it (or sane or just, I would add).
We are not credible if we are biased in asserting factual, but even ethical, truths. This is true now more than ever in a world in which advocacy seems a higher virtue than objectivity. People that know me know that I think Israel has been callous about human lives in Gaza. This is regardless of the moral depravity indeed moral insanity of their opponents. Hamas was not a sufficient threat to Israel's existence to justify these civilian deaths. Even Hamas knows its only weapon is the martyrdom of their own people. There were other, no doubt slower but more humane ways.
Nevertheless the cruelest act which perpetuates this endless war is the world's unwillingness to tell the Palestinians and their allies that the only justice for them is to stop living in the past and move on. The Arab states and even the community of Columbia University can do this. Iran's current regime seems incapable.
Okay, but why must we tell the Palestinians to move on? I get your point from a purely logical level ("Israel has big bombs so they'll win" is, I suppose, the argument), but humans are not logical beings. We are emotional. And Palestinians have just as much an emotional claim to their land as to the Israelis. Quite frankly, it feels very much like telling the Native Americans to "move on" from the way their lands were stolen. Meanwhile, the reason Native American tribes are generally not thriving in America is solely because we forced them to move on after stripping them of their resources. Sure, Palestinians can "move on"... to what, though? What resources are they being granted in order to thrive anywhere else. And for what purpose? So that Israelis (or heaven forbid, Trump) can have prime ocean-front real estate? It all just seems to me to be very callous and completely devoid of the empathy and emotion that powers the entirety of human motivation.
I apologize if this sounds condescending, but, your intellectual honesty makes you vulnerable to reason. It is "logical", as you say, not to fight battles you can't win but which only spill innocent blood IF you have the alternative of living in peace and prosperity. But does that demonstrate a lack of empathy as you suggest or the opposite? You can list reasons why these are not exactly the circumstances presented to Palestinians at this time. There is a list at least equally as long of why these circumstance are the determining ones. Both lists are adroit and deep dive into history. One fact that makes this choice less obvious is that Palestinian and Arab government resistance has made the choice less attractive over the decades. Nevertheless, I think it's indisputable the choice is still the only sane future for the Palestinian who is not in the elite or able to emigrate. I bet the Arab governments are only being coy about the fact that they are ready to move on.
People over the millenia have had to make this choice to survive and often prosper. This includes the indigenous people of cultures which were technologically completely incompatible with those that replaced them. More recent examples are the Greeks and Armenians of Turkey and the Eastern European Germans after WWII. Even more recent are the Provisional IRA of Northern Ireland. Many were treated badly, worse than the Palestinians. They didn't accept defeat. They accepted reality.
Golda Meir is said to have said "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." I'm sure an honest Palestinian has good reason to be enraged at an element of facile hypocrisy in this statement, but, it still is truth, if difficult to accept. Time to move on and stop listening to crazy people like Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Time also for the Iranians to dump the latter.
Addendum (sorry): Moving on does not mean not having and expressing legitimate grievances. It is from a place where one can survive and thrive without debilitating hatred. If anything, it might make those complaints more credible. If not, it matters less.