President Trump has stated repeatedly that Iran's rulers must never be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. But he hasn't clearly explained why, so let me put it bluntly: They would use them.
Iran's rulers are self-proclaimed Islamic revolutionaries and the world's leading sponsors of terrorism. For 47 years, they've vowed "Death to America!" If they were to obtain nuclear warheads and missiles that could deliver them to American cities, why would they refrain?
If you think they wouldn't dare because, in retaliation, we'd strike back with our own nukes, think again. These are jihadis who, for decades, have been murdering their own people, including dissidents, religious minorities, and women who failed to cover their hair as the mullahs prefer. In January of this year alone, they slaughtered tens of thousands of Iranians for the "crime" of peacefully protesting.
The guys with the guns in Iran call themselves the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – not the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This follows the ideology – or more precisely the theology – of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and founder of the Islamic Republic.
He believed that patriotism is a form of idolatry. "Islam is against nationality," he told his followers. He's also been quoted — in a passage some historians dispute but which certainly captures the spirit of his beliefs — as saying he'd be content to see Iran "go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
And let's be honest: Would any American leader really answer a nuclear 9/11 against us or our allies by slaughtering vast numbers of innocent Iranians who despise the tyrants who rule them? What good would it do?
A nuclear first-strike isn't the only danger — and may not even be the most likely. Iran's rulers could simply threaten, terrorize, and subjugate their neighbors, attack American assets, and issue demands under a nuclear umbrella.
Perhaps they'd insist that all Americans – "imperialist" soldiers, "colonialist" diplomats, and "capitalist" businessmen – retreat from the Middle East. Or maybe they'd champion the "right" of American Muslims to live according to Sharia – Islamic law.
Wouldn't we decide against striking Iran in any scenario if there's even a minimal chance that a nuclear-tipped ICBM could evade our missile defenses and reduce an American city to rubble?
Iran's rulers are allied with the dictatorships in Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang – the last of which acquired nukes after a much-ballyhooed "diplomatic solution" failed. Imagine all four members of this "Axis of Aggressors" issuing ultimatums backed by nuclear threats. Can you not hear the arguments in favor of capitulation?
The isolationists and "restrainers" on the left and right contend that Mr. Trump was wrong to respond seriously to the decades of low-intensity warfare that the Tehran regime has been waging against America.
Many maintain that President Obama's nuclear deal – which gave the regime a patient pathway to an industrial-size nuclear program – was good enough. And wasn't everything hunky-dory during the Biden administration?
The answer is no, because Iran's rulers were making steady progress toward the development of nuclear weapons in subterranean fortresses while simultaneously amassing an enormous arsenal of missiles and drones – enough to put the regime into what Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called "a zone of immunity."
Last year's Twelve-Day War and this year's Operation Epic Fury decimated that arsenal and set back the regime's nuclear weapons program from just a few weeks to as much as three years. That's progress. But it's not mission accomplished.
We've been slow to grasp the impact of "cheap tech" and plentiful drones on the battlespace. We were wrong to believe that our small supply of exquisite and expensive munitions would shock and awe Iran's rulers, making them desperate for a deal.
The American bases in the Middle East, located dangerously close to Iran, should long ago have received more resources to defend themselves. They've suffered hundreds of rocket, missile, and drone attacks – not just over the past two years but for a decade.
So, what's next? The Pentagon has no doubt given President Trump options to consider. I'm sure he'd like a silver bullet but, history suggests, those are usually in short supply.
Military experts I've consulted suggest a more realistic strategy: Maintain the blockade which denies the regime revenue, dries up supply lines and will soon force the regime's troops to battle pro bono. Continue airstrikes against military targets, especially weapons depots and factories – there can't be an infinite number of them.
Airports, government buildings, banks, and communications facilities used by Iran's military should be added to the target list, as should the military commanders and government officials responsible for the mass murders of innocent Iranians.
None of the above requires "boots on the ground." But naval units do need to keep open a channel for commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
That international waterway must not be ceded to Tehran. If it is, what would stop the Houthis, a Tehran proxy, from controlling the Bab al-Mandeb, the exit from the Red Sea, or the Chinese Communist Party from claiming the Taiwan Strait?
America's allies, who need resources from the Gulf more than we do, should help enforce freedom of navigation – a fundamental international law. American diplomats may need to twist some arms. That's why they're paid the big bucks.
U.S. economic and military power, coupled with ironclad determination – and no more ceasefires, please – can break the regime's back. How might its collapse come about? I'm reminded of the Ernest Hemingway character who described the way he went broke: "Gradually, then suddenly."