Aaarrrggghhh!!!!!
In Mel Brooks remake of “To Be or Not to Be” Polish actor Frederick Bronski, channeling Hitler, proclaims, “I don’t want war. All I want is peace, peace, peace” before breaking into a song making clear that what he really wants is “A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France, a little piece of Portugal and Austria perchance”. This scene popped into my head after hearing that the U.S. had bombed Iran.
It seems as if our President is now channeling Bronski’s Hitler, constantly proclaiming, as he did on August 8, 2025, “As President, my highest aspiration is to bring peace and stability to the world”, while what he really wants is “A little piece of Greenland, a little piece of Iran, a little piece of Venezuela, a little piece of Syria, if I can.” Unfortunately, while Brooks can somehow make even the megalomania of Hitler funny, there is nothing amusing about bombing cities and killing people based on a slew of manufactured provocations.
Let’s be clear. There is little to like about the Iranian regime. Without a doubt, Theocracy is the worst form of government. It combines all the repression of autocracy with a moral (and I use the term loosely) rectitude that imbues the rulers’ policies with the prestige of God. It allows leaders to justify with a divine halo whatever perverse and unpopular edict they want to impose on people.
And yes, Iran has long stirred up deadly trouble in the Middle East. They have armed insurgents in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and other countries. Their support has promoted violence and disruption. They have encouraged the spread of their theocratic governing philosophies and helped destabilize the region.
Probably Iran’s most egregious on-going exportation of violence is their backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah has done much to prevent Lebanon from recovering from its devastating civil war and has done so with Iran’s help. They have been a thorn in the side of Israel, and it is not surprising, though definitely troubling, that Israel has invaded Lebanon as an auxiliary to the Iranian air strikes.
Most egregious in some eyes, Iran has asserted a right to develop nuclear weapons. It is unclear how far their nuclear program has progressed. It is also unclear what they would do if their program succeeded, especially in the face of neighbors who would have larger and more powerful nuclear arsenals.
There is no doubt that the Iranian people deserve better. Their brave protests in the face of a government that is willing to go to any lengths to suppress them are awe-inspiring. Again and again, they have taken to the streets demanding their right to choose how they should live in defiance of religious bureaucrats who label them as apostates and blasphemers for daring to decry their holy pronouncements.
If all that’s true, what’s wrong with going in there and knocking them around for a bit? Everything. Let’s talk about what Iran has not done. They have not invaded any other country, ala Iraq in Kuwait. They have never attacked the United States, and there is no scenario in which such an attack was imminent, no matter the nonsense now being spouted. While they have supported insurgents throughout the Middle East, so have we (Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen).
Nor are we justified in acting as nuclear policeman. While it would be troubling if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it is troubling that anyone has them, including us. We have acquiesced to country after country accumulating such weapons when we did not see any means of preventing it (India, Pakistan, North Korea) and encouraged others to do so (Israel). It is hard to rationally counter Iran’s argument that they should have a right to such weapons if their neighbors have them. With this history, it is hard to stomach the outrage over the Iranian program.
It is even more ridiculous to say that we are doing this for the Iranian people. Some will celebrate the fall of their government by any means, but that celebration would be muted when it’s understood that it is bought through the deaths of thousands of their co-citizens. Nor should we make the mistake of treating the Iranians as a monolith, all pleading to an end to the theocracy. Many support the Ayatollahs and will continue to do so.
I could go on about the potential pluses and minuses of these deadly attacks, but that avoids the question. This is not a debate about strategy, or potential outcomes. All we can really say about where this will lead is that it will be somewhere we cannot predict. It always is.
Ultimately, this is a moral, not a military, question. Do we have the right to kill people of another country because we do not agree with that country’s policies, internal or external, assuming that those policies do not include an attack on the U.S. or another country? No, we do not. The use of violence is morally wrong, except in self-defense, and even then, especially when its state sponsored violence, it should be a last resort.
As a nation we love violence. We have been indoctrinated with the false premise that violence can solve all problems. We see it proclaimed daily on TV and in the movies. The violence is wrapped in bows as justifiable revenge to make it more palatable, but the message is clear. No problem is beyond solving by a Beretta or a good right cross.
This is clearly the tenet of the current administration. The sophomoric change of the Department of Defense to the Department of War would be laughable if it did not reflect a belief that our military is there to dish out death wherever convenient, whether it be against small boats off the coast of Venezuela or in the cities of Iran. Inventing reasons for that violence is secondary, a thinly disguised public mollification exercise.
Two other shibboleths should also be disposed of. We cover our carnage by saying that we are “going to war” with Iran, when what we really mean is that we are justified in killing thousands of people. If I had my way we would outlaw the word “war” and make anyone promoting state violence say, “This is why we have to kill thousands.” I think that would change the debate.
Second, it’s time we stop misusing what happened in Munich in 1938, which I heard cited recently by an administration official. Leading up to that summit Hitler had stated his intent to invade the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. Iran has threatened no such invasion. If they had, we would have the right to stand by the threatened country and say “Nein, es is Verboten!!!” But that is not this scenario. Munich is an immaterial and misleading precedent for our actions.
What is most galling is that this is being done in my name. No, I did not vote for the current President. Yes, I have opposed virtually every policy they have promulgated. However, the same flag that adorns the bombers destroying Iranian cities flies over my kid’s schools. And it’s my tax dollars that went into building the planes that dish out death. I cannot escape responsibility.
I had these same arguments before the Iraqi invasion of 2003. People wanted to talk cost/benefit, and I kept screaming into the void that was the wrong question. Little good it did then, little good it will do now. Yet, it must be said. This is wrong!!! We can only hope that sometime in the future a similar scenario will elicit a universal, loud, emphatic, “NO!!!!!!!!!!!”.