The conversation about Iran should not begin and end at the gas pump.
Yes, Americans are paying more for fuel. Yes, military operations are expensive. And yes, every dollar spent overseas matters to working families struggling with inflation.
Presently inflation is 3.8 percent — under Biden is was 9.1 percent — highest in 40 years. But there is a larger question that the critics of President Trump rarely ask: What would be the cost if Iran had succeeded in becoming a nuclear power?
For decades, presidents from both parties have warned “Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons.” Bush said it. Obama said it. Biden said it. Trump said it and did something about it.
This is one of few national security issues enjoyed by bipartisan agreement in 20 years. The difference is not in recognizing the threat, but how each chose to deal with it.
• President Bush relied on sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
• President Obama negotiated the Iran nuclear agreement, believing inspections and international oversight would prevent Iran from obtaining a weapon. He ultimately released funds that helped Iran’s nuclear proliferation.
• President Biden largely continued diplomatic and economic pressure while unsuccessfully seeking to prevent escalation.
• President Trump concluded that diplomacy had failed and Iran’s nuclear ambitions had advanced too far. Rather than continuing to draw red lines, he chose to enforce one. Trump did not rush to war. He repeatedly offered Iran opportunities to negotiate and avoid conflict.
His public statements consistently emphasized that his dispute was with a regime pursuing nuclear weapons, not with the Iranian people. He even called to negotiate on behalf of eight Iranian women scheduled to be executed and he prevailed.
His actions reflected patience and restraint — seeking peace, if possible, but recognizing that peace is not preserved by ignoring a growing threat. His willingness to act reflected a belief that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons would ultimately place far more lives at risk — American, Israeli, Iranian and the world itself.
Critics are counting dollars. Supporters are counting risk to life and security.
A nuclear Iran would mean higher gasoline prices. It could trigger a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East. It would place nuclear capabilities in the hands of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
It would embolden Iranian-backed proxy groups throughout the region. It would threaten Israel, America’s allies, international shipping routes and global energy supplies. The Strait of Hormuz already demonstrates how much influence Iran can exert over the world economy. Imagine that leverage backed by nuclear weapons.
History teaches us that Iran’s hostility toward the United States is not imaginary. Americans remember the 1979 hostage crisis.
Americans remember the Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. servicemen. Americans remember decades of attacks by Iranian-backed terrorist organizations and militias against American interests and allies.
The question is not whether confronting Iran carries a cost. It does.
The question is whether the cost of confronting Iran today is less than the cost of confronting a nuclear-armed Iran tomorrow. Many Americans believe the answer is yes.
No one enjoys paying more at the pump. No one wants war. But freedom, security and peace are not always preserved by avoiding hard decisions and kicking the can down the road for the next president. Sometimes leadership requires acting before the danger becomes irreversible.
Critics act as though President Trump’s actions created a brand-new precedent. They did not.
Truman entered Korea without a declaration of war. Kennedy and Johnson escalated Vietnam without one. Carter launched the Iran hostage rescue mission without one. Reagan acted in Grenada and Libya. Clinton acted in Bosnia and Kosovo. Obama acted in Libya. Biden ordered strikes in Syria and Iraq.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with these decisions, the historical reality is that presidents of both parties have repeatedly used military force without prior congressional approval. It’s only when Trump does it that people get their shorts all tied up in a knot.
The real question is not whether a president can act in a crisis — the question is whether the threat being confronted justifies the action taken. In the case of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, many Americans believe the cost of inaction would have been far greater.
History will ultimately judge whether he was right. But if Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been significantly delayed or crippled, future generations may look back on today’s economic sacrifice as a small price compared to the dangers that were avoided.
As Americans, we are in danger of becoming so consumed with political power that we lose sight of the responsibilities that come with it. Too often the debate centers on who wins, who loses and which party gains an advantage, while the real issues affecting our families, our security and our future go unresolved.
A nation cannot remain strong if its citizens view one another as enemies while ignoring the genuine threats facing the country.
Wisdom requires us to look beyond personalities and political tribes and focus on truth, justice, security and the common good.
We may disagree on solutions, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we are ultimately on the same side as Americans, entrusted with preserving our Constitutional Republic for the next generation.
JoAnn Melton is a resident of Mariposa.
Responses (0)