Striking Iran Nuclear Program is in America's Interest, Independent of Israel
We have been sold a lie by anti-Israel activists that America's foreign policy endeavors in the Middle East are due to Israel lobbying the US to take action. Here's why they are wrong.
Trump’s recent movements in the Middle East have spurred the usual suspects on the left and right to bemoan a potential “war with Iran”. Their arguments are weak, and the root of their arguments are almost always that Israel is “dragging us into another pointless war”. Let me explain why they couldn’t be more wrong—why it is absolutely in the United States’ best interest to not allow Iran to become a nuclear power, even if use of force is necessary; why Trump’s coalition won’t fall apart should he strike the facilities; and how we can come to these conclusions without mentioning Israel’s interests.
Those who support the Islamic Regime of Iran claim that they need a nuclear weapon to “deter” foreign intervention and regime change, but really, it is the regime that acts hostile towards the US. Should the regime get a nuclear weapon, it will provide them cover to continue their provocative actions towards the US and our interests at home and abroad.
For instance, the Islamic Regime’s proxy Ansar Allah targeted US and European ships in the Red Sea from October 2023 to May 2025, essentially halting global shipping in a key waterway. This negatively affected the US, the EU, and Egypt in addition to Israel, causing billions in losses for companies having to pay more for shipping, insurance, and lost Suez Canal revenue for Egypt. They also kidnapped 11 UN employees in June 2024, and held 25 cargo ship crew members hostage for 14 months after hijacking the ship they worked on, the Galaxy Leader. Ansar Allah was provided intelligence on which ships to target in the Red Sea by Iranian military vessels. The reason the US has a Navy is to promote global free trade on the high seas - how is it in the US interest to allow rebel groups backed by Iran to take hostages and deter use of an essential waterway?
In addition to the actions of Ansar Allah, Iran’s most valuable proxy, Hezbollah, has been deeply engaged in anti-American provocative activities in Latin America. Hezbollah operates drug and human trafficking operations in South and Latin America in order to fund its militia in Lebanon, and it’s likely that most illicit substances in the US today have touched Hezbollah in some way by the time they make it across the border to the US. Hezbollah also interfered in the 2020 US election via influence operations to dissuade the public from re-electing President Trump, and the US arrested Iranian individuals charged with conspiracy to assassinate President Trump in 2024.
The United States has been able to take swift action to counter Iran’s provocative activities laid out above, partially due to American military dominance, but also because Iran cannot currently threaten to retaliate against US actions with the most powerful weapon a country can possess: a nuclear bomb. If Iran had such a weapon, the US would have to carefully consider taking actions to limit Iran’s aggression, as we have had to do when considering how helpful we can be to the Ukrainians after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Nuclear bombs are not just immensely powerful kinetic weapons capable of mass destruction, but can also function as psychological weapons, meant to torment a population and dissuade them from attacking or responding to attacks.
Why would Trump, who desires to be seen and remembered a master negotiator, allow a hostile actor who tried to have him assassinated to obtain the ultimate negotiation tool? Should the Regime in Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, for the rest of time, historians will remember President Trump as the American President who allowed the world’s largest state sponsor of terror to be afforded the luxury of an untouchable regime. Why would the isolationist MAGA coalition want their President to be remembered in such a way?
This coalition of MAGA “loyalists”—who have threatened their loyalty should Trump green-light a strike—claim to be in opposition to such an action because they “don’t want more wars”. It should be noted that should Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, it is almost certain that there will be more war in the future, not less. We can expect Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, among others, to make dashes to obtain nuclear weapons should Iran obtain one. Other allies outside of the Middle East such as Japan, South Korea, and Germany may also seek nuclear weapons. One of the few longstanding hypotheses of nuclear proliferation scholars is that if countries make dashes to obtain nuclear bombs, more war will ensue. So if this coalition is really serious about preventing war, they should support policy (including limited military action) that would prevent nuclear proliferation.
It is clearly in our national interest to prevent a hostile power from obtaining such a powerful weapon, but that has not factored in the domestic politics of war in general. While prominent MAGA Inc. influencers like Jack Posobic and Matt Walsh claim that MAGA will fall apart should Trump take these actions, this analysis is likely wrong.
While it’s true Trump built a coalition of war-weary Republicans upset about the Iraq war and disaffected Democrats who left their former party due to foreign policy, a strike on Iran would be nothing like the failures of the Iraq war. This coalition voted for Trump knowing his record—while he addresses their concerns, he pummeled Ansar Allah for 30 days, so much so that they signed a deal with Trump that they would stop targeting US and European ships in the Red Sea. The MAGA isolationists were silent about that. MAGA backed Trump after he toppled ISIS in months when estimates said it would take years, and drew praise from mainstream media types like Brian Williams on NBC, as well as more hawkish Republicans like Senators Tom Cotton and Lindsay Graham. This is not the record of a dove, but rather one of realism, RealPolitik, and peace through strength. Limited military strikes are necessary to continue President Trump’s record.
Taking out Iran’s nuclear capabilities would not be a years-long, losing war, it’s likely a 10 hour air campaign that the IRGC has little to no ability to defend themselves from. Any dissatisfaction from the MAGA anti-war coalition will likely be short lived, as the campaign will not last long, and be overshadowed by praise from mainstream foreign policy hawks, mainstream media, and the international community—who is more likely than ever to support strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, given the report released today by the IAEA which notes for the first time in 20 years that Iran is not just in violation of the JCPOA, but is also in violation of the NPT.
All of these reasons not to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon exist outside of Israel and Israel’s interests—a distinction I wish I did not have to make. Unfortunately in today’s political discourse, a narrative has taken ahold of certain voting blocks that Israel is to blame for American involvement in the Middle East, and that the only reason we take actions in the Middle East is at the request of Israel. While it frankly bothers me that we would have to make a distinction between US and Israeli interests being that Israel is designated a major non-NATO ally, and it necessarily follows that US and Israel’s interests are aligned more often than they are not aligned, I chose to write this to arm you with the necessary information to engage in discussions about American foreign policy interests independent of Israel, because that argument is so commonly used.
It is my sincere hope that this reaches the right audience and can help you understand, if not outright support, potential American military actions against the Iranian Regime and their nuclear program. It is not in the US interest to allow a hostile actor to obtain immensely powerful kinetic and psychological weapons, given their history of provocative actions against the United States and President Trump, and if Iran were to obtain this weapon it would likely lead to more wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, due to an increase in nuclear proliferation. It is unlikely MAGA falls apart as a coalition over this, and these interests exist separate from the interests of Israel.