SouthernWorldwide.com – The question of whether the war with Iran is “worth it” is a profound one, especially when considering the human cost.
“It” refers to the loss of 13 American soldiers and numerous others sustaining serious injuries. If, as anticipated, combat operations resume, these human casualties are expected to rise.
Furthermore, the prices of gasoline and all products dependent on oil will also increase. Some of these price hikes will be immediate, while others will emerge over time. However, the world’s most critical commodity, oil, cannot transition from $60-$70 a barrel to $100 or more without a significant price shock following such a rise. Every American will feel the impact of this.
President Trump is aware of these consequences. In an interview last week from Beijing, he conveyed to Bret Baier that while the loss of soldiers was regrettable and deeply regretted, the war is a necessary evil, as wars often are.
The President also expressed empathy for those experiencing the “pain at the pump.” However, he reiterated plainly that Operation Epic Fury was a necessary undertaking.
The rationale behind this operation is straightforward. Iran’s objective is to acquire nuclear weapons by any means available. The original leadership and their senior officials, now deceased, along with their successors and many replacements, were described as “crazy,” “lunatics,” and fanatical, making them unsuitable negotiating partners.
President Trump has made attempts at negotiation, at least four times. However, he is not former President Obama, for whom any “deal” with Iran was considered advantageous, even the flawed and loophole-ridden “JCPOA.”
Baca juga di sini: US military is powerful enough to crush enemies, but can it defeat their 'final 10%?'
Unlike Obama, Trump is unwilling to permit such a regime to possess nuclear weapons. President Trump has repeatedly stated that they would have used them, potentially striking Israel and the entire Middle East with nuclear weapons, even as the regime had already targeted 14 different countries with ballistic missiles.
It is worth recalling that Obama’s diplomatic efforts, which resulted in the JCPOA, did nothing to address Iran’s ballistic missile program or its support for terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. The choice of Stephen Colbert to discuss the JCPOA with Obama was telling, as the former President likely knew the late-night host would not delve into the obvious shortcomings of the agreement, let alone the “sunset clauses” that are now coming into effect.
If one doubts President Trump’s assessment of the Iranian leadership, it is essential to re-examine their reasoning. President Trump is correct: religious fanatics should not possess nuclear weapons. This is a non-negotiable point.
Regarding the cost of gasoline, a common argument concerning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was that average citizens were not required to actively support the war effort.
There was no draft, no rationing, and not even increased taxes. War bonds, if ever contemplated, were never offered. Instead, substantial deficits were incurred to finance a decade of war in Iraq, which concluded in a form of stalemate, and two decades of war in Afghanistan, ending in a debacle that former President Biden simply ordered to be abandoned, despite the immense cost of that exit.
A small fraction of the nation, those who served in the military and their families, bore the brunt of these conflicts. The approximately 7,000 killed and 55,000 wounded in these prolonged wars made the ultimate sacrifice, with their families carrying the heaviest burden. The entire military contributed significantly, far beyond what any civilians did, representing a collective sacrifice by the military that is unparalleled.
However, for civilians, there was no comparable direct contribution. Does the rise in gasoline prices not at least challenge the argument that civilians bear no costs of war, particularly in the context of the current conflict with Iran?
One may not appreciate bearing this sacrifice, and alternative methods of cost distribution, such as income tax surcharges, might be preferred. However, the cost of war is at least being felt beyond the military.
Americans will soon have an opportunity to vote on whether they will accept this burden without objection, or perhaps even willingly. A significant portion of the United States fully supports the crippling of Iran, even at the expense of higher gasoline prices.
The longer the conflict persists, the higher the cost will become, and the more frequently and directly President Trump and his close advisors will need to reiterate their core message: Crazed religious fanatics cannot possess nuclear weapons. Ever.
This is a principle that justifies a political campaign. Those who advocate for appeasement of Iran will argue that such a situation was avoidable and entirely unnecessary.
In the 1930s, the United Kingdom and France succumbed to the seductive allure of appeasement, opting for the illusion of negotiations with Hitler. President Trump, however, was never going to be swayed by the foreign policy establishment with their acronyms and flawed logic, which relied on the word of a regime known for 47 years of terrorism and deceit.
This is a debate that the country should, and will, engage in. It is a discussion that is long overdue.
