
<p>President Trump can take counsel from Shakespeare, who wrote.</p>



<p><em>Whether &#8217;tis nobler in the mind to suffer<br>The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,<br>Or to take arms against a sea of troubles.</em></p>



<p>Or perhaps Trump already has. After all, he is already known for taking up arms when experiencing the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. In that case, Trump should hope for a positive conclusion to the war in Iran – remembering that <em>“All’s Well That Ends Well.”</em></p>



<p>And that is the question.</p>



<p>Currently, we have a lot of armchair generals – politicians, reporters and even some politicized former generals – who are making judgments on the war and every new event. They are not making objective observations, however, but partisan interpretations that have spent too much time in the spin machine.</p>



<p>Critics say that this is an unnecessary war of choice – and that Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States or the civilized world. The second criticism answers the first. Virtually every nation on earth saw Iran as the number one sponsor of world terrorism. That is not debatable. The criminal regime in Tehran has been responsible for innumerable acts of violence against the free world &#8212; including responsibility for the deaths of millions of people throughout the Middle East and across the globe over the past 47 years. This includes hundreds of thousands of their own people. They have wreaked havoc costing billions, if not trillions, of dollars in damage and destruction &#8212; and have made hostage taking a matter of foreign policy.</p>



<p>All that is not past history. It has been the unending policies of Iran, the national goal of which is “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” – the nations they refer to as the “little Satan” and the “Big Satan”. And yet, those on the radical left say that Trump’s war is provoking them to hate us. Where have these folks been for the past 47 years?</p>



<p>The answer to the second criticism is a resounding “yes” – the regime in Iran has and does present imminent danger to the United States, Israel and others. The violence has been consistent and ongoing. The October 7th, Tehran sponsored attack on Isael is just one example. Others include the taking of American hostages &#8230; the deadly attack on the American barracks in Beirut is yet another &#8230; the deadly attack on the USS Cole another &#8230; and roadside IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan that killed and maimed American service members. Even so-called lone wolf attacks in America – especially impacting on the Jewish community – offer more examples. Iran’s unchanged historic actions and current actions make them an imminent threat to the United States – not to mention their motivation in pursuing nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems.</p>



<p>Iran also represents an imminent non-military threat to the United States and the world community. It is within Iran’s power to undermine America’s and other nations’ wellbeing and security by disrupting the flow of oil. We can see that being played out at this very moment.</p>



<p>Since it is obvious that Iran is an ongoing imminent threat – and would be mores so with nuclear capability – this war was not only necessary, but it has been long overdue.</p>



<p>Trump antagonists also claim that he had no plan, no articulated goals and no exit strategy. Those accusations are not only absurd, but they also come close to aiding and abetting an enemy. It is no coincidence that the rhetoric of Democrat leaders and the greater left-wing establishment sounds disturbingly similar to the propaganda criticism and accusations coming from what is left of the regime in Tehran. The language emanating from the American left and the folks in Tehran is designed to build opposition to the war in the pursuit of a premature withdrawal. In other words, a defeat of America’s national interests.</p>



<p>Just because the administration has not informed the public of specific plans and timetables, does not mean they do not exist. It would be official malpractice for the administration to telegraph the plans the enemy. In terms of deadlines or exit strategies, those are impossible to articulate with certainty in advance. Even with the most well developed plans, the vicissitudes of war prevent perfect execution of any plan. It requires field calls.</p>



<p>Critics say that Trump fails to inform the public of the goals. They seem very clear. The number one goal is to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities and to take control of the enriched uranium. Another articulated goal is to prevent Iran from being able to continue its sponsorship of world terrorism. There is another purpose, and that defending are allies and friends in the Middle East – including the majority of Iranians who have suffered so severely under the regime. There is a reason why most Arab nations are privately encouraging the United States to press on and complete the job.</p>



<p>Although regime change is not to be advocated out loud, it seems that one goal is &#8230; regime change. That is a work in progress. Most of the leadership of the old regime are dead. Many of those who stepped up to take their place are also dead. And there will be more.</p>



<p>The war in Iran cannot be evaluated until it is over. It is entirely possible that Trump will have his “all’s well that ends well” moment. The draconian analyses coming from the left are at best premature and inappropriate. At worst, they are partisan driven disloyalty. In times past, it might have been seen as treason.</p>



<p>Do the war critics really want a ceasefire or an American precipitous withdrawal, leaving the remnants of the old regime to reconstitute, to restart their nuclear program with the uranium they currently hold, to continue their terrorist war on America and our allies, to continue to destabilize the Middle East, and continue to oppress and murder their own people? In the absence of a better explanation, that is exactly what they appear to be willing to accept.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Democrat Criticism of the Iran War is Wrong, Dangerous and Disloyal.
