The White Flag Of Righteousness

Ding, dong, the Ayatollah’s dead. Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Jihadist and mass murderer, was sent off to his 72-virgin (or is that Virginians?) heavenly reward by American military firepower. The President that many derided with the “TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out) nickname finally pulled the trigger on holding the murderous theocracy to account.

This after years of futile negotiations and other efforts to convince the Mad Mullah and his cohorts to abandon their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Negotiations that had to happen for appearances’ sake, but that any rational observer knew were a waste of time.

Why a waste of time? Because religious fanatics don’t think like you and I do. They don’t care about the welfare of the people they lead, or about peace or coexistence. Iran’s theocratic regime desired the destruction of Israel, as part of a broader goal to spread Islam across the world. It has pursued that goal via its myriad proxies waging terror in the Middle East, and via its efforts to amass highly enriched uranium (HEU). Its assertions that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful and for domestic energy use are utterly risible. Nuclear reactors need uranium enriched to 3-5% U-235, while nuclear bombs need 90%. Why, other than building nuke bombs, would Iran continue to make HEU?

And why, other than continuing its holy war against Israel and against Western liberalism, would Iran be pursuing nuclear bombs? Sure, we can also ponder that Iran might seek them for use or as a deterrent in its centuries long conflict against Sunni Islam, but one look at where the regime has focused its money and efforts answers the question.

From a geopolitical perspective, allowing Iran to build nukes is utterly bonkers. It would not only be an existential threat to Israel, it would be a permanently destabilizing force across the Middle East and the globe. We’ve already seen the regime’s utter disregard for human life. Khamenei ordered or oversaw the execution of over 30,000 Iranians, for “crimes” such as political dissent and same-sex relations. His thugs slaughtered many more thousands of protestors in recent weeks. And his theocracy turned a nation that was once a place where women could live freely in to one where they are little more than chattel.

Because it was Trump who served up Operation Epic Fury, rather than one of theirs, the usual suspects muttered their usual condemnations.

It’s not surprising to hear the likes of NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Reps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar denounce the action. Their game is inflammatory partisan rhetoric, no matter that the guy they’re defending was a monster. It’s especially galling to see women side with Iran’s regime, but this is modern, binary politics.

It’s also not surprising to see never-Trumpers grousing.

Which brings me to today’s point.

Among the complaints is the protestation that Trump did not go to Congress to get an authorization of force for this attack. While I agree in principle, I question the timing and motives of the complainers.

What is the goal of voicing this point?

Is it to win hearts and minds, to inspire others to demand from their representatives that Congress rein in Presidents’ ability to unilaterally direct military action? To try and promote actual change?

Or is it to signal a moral superiority over the less philosophically pure?

I am a long-time opponent of the death penalty, for reasons I detail here, but since my goal in voicing such opposition is to convince others to see things my way, I give consideration to time, place, and circumstances. I would not, for example, make John Wayne Gacy a poster child for my opposition.

Similarly, I would not pick the immediate aftermath of a strike against a mass-murdering, deeply villainous theocracy, a strike celebrated by the people suffering under that theocracy, to repeat a long-running argument about process. Yes, long-running. Presidents have been going the “forgiveness rather than permission” route on military action for virtually the entirety of this nation’s history, and Congress has repeatedly ceded its Article I Section 8 mandate to the Executive Branch. That includes Clinton, Obama, and Biden, by the way. Epic Fury is by no means an outlier.

If one thinks decapitating the Iranian government and damaging its abilities to wage war and pursue nuclear weapons is a bad idea, that’s the argument one should make. That’s the substantive debate to be had. Arguing process in this moment, however, is just preening.

It’s also a misunderstanding of the purpose of principles.

Principles, as a real-world matter, are supposed to be a guiding foundation, not a suicide pact. They serve to tell us which way to try and move the political needle. They’re not supposed to crowd out the world around us.

Every person of principle has a vision of an ideal end-state. Moving things toward that end-state should be the goal, and one does that by trying to coax others in that direction. This calls for thoughtfulness and discretion rather than contemptuous peacocking.

It also calls for recognition of reality.

As a libertarian, I believe in free movement, and that includes across national borders. But, as someone who isn’t a fanatical ideologue, I understand that my form of free movement is incompatible with the current state of things, and I also understand that a nation that does not control its borders is not a nation. So, I pick and choose the when and how of my immigration advocacy, in the hope that I can sway opinions in my direction.

Grousing about lack of Congressional authorization in the immediate aftermath of the attack on Iran is a lousy “when and how.” It’s also cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. No matter the aftermath - and the aftermath is a great, big unknown - it’s pretty obvious that the world is a better place now that Khamenei is sleeping with the fishes. Getting righteous about process rather than saying “good riddance” may feel like one’s sticking to one’s principles above all else, but it’s really just a surrender to a dogmatic blindness.

Yes, Congress should claw back the power to wage war. It should do so in a non-partisan fashion, for non-partisan reasons... and not in the immediate aftermath of the death of a really bad dude.

As for the Leftists who bewail his death, I say “keep at it.” The Dems are poised to take back the House in this fall’s midterm elections, but siding with a regime that is actually doing everything they accuse the “fascist” Trump of wanting to do is terrible optics, and that’s before we discuss the moral bankruptcy. Enough of this sort of stupidity and the GOP House majority might actually, miraculously, survive.

I’m sure some readers will disagree with me. I’ve heard the arguments about sticking to principles no matter the circumstances. I’m not advocating abandoning them, however. I’m pointing out that, if one wishes to win hearts and minds, being strategic is better than being dogmatic. The loudly annoying purist is usually found on the outside, ignored by everyone else, for a reason.

---

A “purist” footnote. There was a time, decades past, where some libertarians advocated for intervention against oppression, in the name of morality and advancement of our ideals, outside American borders. Some, not all, but enough to create debate in libertarian bull sessions. I recall being on both sides of such debates, at different times. I almost dubbed this bit “The Pure And The Practical,” but the notion of surrendering (aka waving a white flag) to a dogmatic commitment seemed more fitting. YMMV, of course.

As for Epic Fury itself? It’s a big gamble, with major upside but also major peril. We cannot know how it will work out, especially this soon. But, we can still celebrate the decapitation of this regime, and the elimination of one of the most evil men in recent history. I hope it goes well. And so should everyone else. Trump haters included.