Blue State Blues: The Column I Wrote Before I Knew Israel Attacked Iran

On Thursday afternoon California time, I boarded a flight with my children and began the next phase of a temporary move to Washington, DC, where we will be while our fire-ravaged neighborhood is rebuilt.

I checked the news before we boarded, and while there had been rumors all day that Israel might attack Iran, there was no news about it by the time we took off.

There was also no WiFi on the flight — a rarity — so I sat down to write my weekly column offline. I was concerned about the skepticism I perceived, especially on the American right, about Israel’s ability to carry out a successful effort.

For the record, I did not actually think an Israeli attack was imminent, but I was absolutely convinced that Israel would succeed if it did attack Iran, even acting alone. Israel, with its survival at stake, always does.

This is what I wrote, without knowing that Israel was attacking Iran’s nuclear sites at the very same time that I was putting these thoughts together:

The United States should lead, join, or support airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear sites to prevent the regime from developing nuclear weapons or exporting nuclear material and technology to its terrorist proxies. 

Iran is clearly a threat. It has a long record of attacking U.S. forces, both directly and through its terrorist proxies. Iran and its proxies have also attacked U.S. allies, with Israel the most notable target, but not the only one.

Many of these attacks have been unprovoked. For example, Hamas, a Palestinian terror group with Iranian backing, broke an existing ceasefire to launch the terror attacks of October 7, 2023.

It would therefore be extremely foolish, at best, to allow Iran to become a nuclear power. That is why the U.S., and Israel, have threatened to use airstrikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear program should negotiations with Iran fail.     

Such airstrikes would not be an Iraq-style invasion, but would rather be limited, like the Israeli airstrikes on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, and on Syria’s nuclear program in 2007, neither of which led to broader wars.

Those who fear a broader war, or retaliation, should consider that Iran has already been waging such a war — through Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Iraqi militias.

Over the past 20 months, these proxies have been decimated to the point where they are no longer capable of projecting a threat. And Iran’s own air defenses have been destroyed, for now, by limited Israeli airstrikes.

The Iranian people are not generally hostile to the U.S.; many would like to be free of the regime, and could use foreign airstrikes as a catalyst for ousting it. They would also resist going to war against the U.S.

In theory, a diplomatic agreement would be preferable to war, but there is little chance of reaching an agreement that would actually end the Iranian nuclear program. Iran simply uses negotiations to buy time.

The original Iran deal, negotiated by President Barack Obama in 2015, only placed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, and did nothing to stop Iran’s ballistic missile program or support or terror. 

That is why President Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018. He launched a “maximum pressure” campaign designed to contain and destabilize the regime, or else compel it to agree to tighter restrictions.

Trump’s successful approach was undone by President Joe Biden, who spent four fruitless years trying to entice Iran to return to the table. Instead, Iran accelerated its nuclear enrichment as soon as he took office.

When President Trump returned to the Oval Office, he restored “maximum pressure.” That led Iran to return to negotiations. But Iran has refused to agree to anything much stronger than Obama’s original, weak deal.

A successful agreement is still possible — one in which Iran completely dismantles its nuclear enrichment program; comes clean about its past activities; ends its ballistic missile program; and stops supporting terror.

Ideally, any agreement with Iran would also require the regime to make progress on human rights, and could include monitors whose approval would be necessary for Iran to avoid sanctions.

But the regime has shown little interest in compromise. It appears to believe that it can, once more, simply drag out talks until the Trump administration is gone — or until it has gone nuclear.

The Obama and Biden administrations seemed resigned to the rise of Iran as a dominant power; Obama actively encouraged it. The result was terror and instability. By avoiding war, they ensured it.

Trump took a different approach. In 2020, he ordered an airstrike on Iran’s terrorist general, Qasem Soleimani, in Iraq. Democrats warned of a broader war, but Iran’s response was limited and ineffectual.

Today, opposition to airstrikes comes not only from the left, but also from the right. A vocal segment of Trump’s supporters say they oppose any foreign intervention, wishing to avoid another “forever war.”

If Trump determines that launching airstrikes, or joining Israeli airstrikes, would fracture his political coalition, then he should at least support Israel if it decides that it can no longer wait for Iran to change course.

Skeptics of military action against Iran are right to point out that there are risks involved. But nothing would be riskier to the Middle East and the world than the Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon. 

If war is not an option, then the Iranian regime will have no reason to compromise — and Israel, which is too small to survive even one successful Iranian nuclear attack, will be forced to act.

Ironically, the opponents of war are making war more likely. Better to act now, before Iran can rebuild its defenses and before it has a nuclear weapon. Trump has done his best to reach a deal. There is no other option.

Two hours into the flight, my phone — which I had forgotten to switch to airplane mode — found reception for a few minutes, and I received a few messages indicating that an Israeli attack on Iran had, in fact, begun.