Dropping bunker buster bombs in Iran last week will go down in history as one of the best military operations ever. Our planes went to and left undetected after dropping the world’s biggest bombs in an effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities built underground into the side of a mountain. We didn’t target civilians or buildings, only nuclear facilities and the mission was wildly successful, so says our administration.
We had no choice, say proponents. Iran was going to have nuclear capabilities within months, and no one in the region, particularly Israel, could stand for that. Iran is a rogue regime, creating chaos all over the world.
Although I marvel at our military’s operation, as well as what Israel had done in the last week, I’m concerned about the repercussions and the possibility of a protracted war. History has taught us in Viet Nam and Afghanistan, the United States cannot get involved in this type of war.
Supporters of the strike don’t necessarily advocate for a full-blown war. Instead, they envision a limited, precise operation targeting critical facilities, especially those involved in uranium enrichment and weapons development. They argue such a move would buy time, disrupt Iran’s momentum, and demonstrate the international community’s red line is real. I can buy in to this. A quick operation is terrific- just no boots on the ground.
But there are compelling arguments against the bombing and any further action. Retaliation, civilian casualties and regional stability are often stated. Others wonder why we didn’t try to continue diplomacy. There are now reports of sleeper cells in the U.S. that might attack some of our facilities. I suspect Iran will respond in some way, but I’m not sure they have the capability to do too much damage.
I would love nothing more than regime change. The fundamentalists that have ruled Iran and its people with an iron fist for nearly 50 years needs to change. 50 years ago, Iran was a progressive country adopting Western culture and ideals, but that ended when protests forced The Shah to escape to exile and the fundamentalists to take over.
However, regime change is not our concern. That is up to the Iranian people. Most Iranians oppose the fundamentalists, but they fear speaking out. Speaking against the regime could result in imprisonment, or death. But now, the regime is barely hanging on with most of their military might and leaders destroyed. It is possible that new opposition leadership will emerge from within. We can only hope.
But for those who support what we accomplished with the bunker busters, the greater danger lies in hesitation—waiting until Iran has crossed a nuclear threshold that cannot be undone. Whether or not one agrees with this viewpoint, it is a perspective rooted in a hard-nosed assessment of national security, historical precedent, and the limits of negotiation.
The question is no longer whether Iran’s nuclear program poses a risk—but whether the cost of stopping it through force outweighs the cost of letting it continue. We chose action, versus appeasement, and I believe history will prove our actions to be right.
UPDATED: Since writing this opinion piece it appears President Trump has brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Our bunker buster strike did not cause an escalation of the war but actually brought the two sides to the negotiation table. Stay tuned. This is a developing story.
