Me: Democrats agreed that when Obama attacked Libya without Congressional approval, the President has Constitutional authority to order such an attack “in the best interests of the United States.” Obviously taking the opportunity to eliminate Iran as an evil-doer in the Middle-East, an existential threat to Israel, a potential nuclear power hostile to the U.S., and to give the Iranian people an opportunity to overthrow a brutal regime which slaughtered dissidents this month, is in the best interests of the U.S.
Me: Ethics Alarms marked Obama’s cynical, irresponsible deal as unethical and indefensible at the time. Rhodes should hide his head under a bag.
Me: Obama was essentially a black Carter, a weak, feckless President who was a better speaker, and who could call his critics racists. Meanwhile, it’s amusing to see the Axis media rush to Tucker Carlson, that unprincipled weasel, as soon as he criticizes Trump. Please note: I flagged Carlson as fake and a demagogue more than a decade ago. Nobody should care what he says he thinks.
Meanwhile, at Noon EST:
Me: Having Rep. Omar as a member of the Democratic Party all by itself is justification for never trusting that party to do what is in the nation’s best interests.
Me: This is actually funny. Intersectionality never makes sense, but now it’s pulling the Mad Left in different directions. How much better it is to evaluate each situation using logic, fairness and common sense rather than following a lock-step play book with the central rule being only: “Trump is always wrong.”
Me: Go ahead, Facebook Friends, rant about how terrible this is. I dare you.
Posted at Instapundit at 5:48pm:
Me: And the Axis of Unethical Conduct is furious! “These people are crazy” resonates again.
Finally this, from “The Drunk Republican”:
Me: Yup! This is called, I believe, “just desserts.” I would use George Will’s trademark “condign justice,” but Trump-Hating George is undoubtedly one of the mourners today.
___________
Pointer: Instapundit
Ethics Alarms 
Soooooo, how will Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei‘s legacy be appropriately immortalized by Lefty?
Note to Lefty: “Austere Religious Scholar” (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) and “Respected Military Leader” (Qassem Soliemani) are taken…
PWS
Just look at the NY Time headline: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/world/middleeast/ayatollah-ali-khamenei-dead.html
Just in case the change it, the tagline is: “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Hard-Line Cleric Who Made Iran a Regional Power, Is Dead at 86”
The NY Times covered Hitler and Stalin, in a fawning matter. They airbrushed many of thei atrocities. They have not strayed far in 80 years.
Came here from Fox News, reading up on the latest developments. My knee-jerk reaction when I first read about the strikes was concern that we’d have another Afghanistan or Iraq, but given the success we’ve had so far, with most of the Arab world seemingly taking our side, and the Iranian people celebrating, looks like this could be another Venezuela instead.
We can hope, but I worry about the idea of Iranian citizens being urged to overthrow their government. How? They are unarmed. I fear the military and the Basji (sp?) may slaughter civilians by the hundreds of thousands. The guys in charge aren’t going to give up. They would lose their livelihoods. I’m sure the military owns the entire economy like in Pakistand and Cuba. It had to be done, but Jeeze, it’s going to be super dicey.
But much, much more consequential than Venezuela.
I will start with two questions:
In 2003 I was all in with my enthusiasm for the war in Iraq. After 9/11 we thought we had a strong moral case for ending the regime of Saddam Hussain. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were referred to by President G.W. Bush as the Axis of Evil. Based on some intelligence Saddam Hussain possessed weapons of mass destruction. There was a strong belief that regime change would make the Middle East ripe for a different, more Western style of government as all people long for freedom. Changing hearts and minds became the mantra.
The first weeks of the ground war in Iraq all went swimmingly. There were of course the detractors who called the war a “quagmire” after two days; the optimists pundits predicted a cakewalk instead. The Iraqi army was no match, and soon the regime fell, and Saddam Hussain went into hiding. President Bush held a victory speech at May 1st, 2003 at the USS Lincoln under a banner stating “Mission Accomplished”.
After this the occupation began, and lasted for years. It did not go well. The shameful behavior of undisciplined soldiers at Abu Ghraib was a major PR disaster, and may have lost the support of the American public for the Iraq war. A main event was the one that did not happen: finding evidence of weapons of mass destruction, as the intelligence on the basis of which the Iraq invasion was justified was faulty. The mantra became “Bush lied, people died”. The war was about to be lost at the home front.
It went downhill from there. Iraq became a failed state, civil war erupted, ISIS became powerful in North-Iraq and Syria, and the operation was wound down leaving behind a chaos. Under Joe Biden the USA made a shameful retreat in Afghanistan, leaving power to the Taliban.
So what have we learned?
At Friday, before the war in Iran started, John D Davidson at the Federalist asked some very critical questions about the justification offered by Trump for a potential war in Iraq. Is it the nuclear weapons program? Was this problem not already fixed in June? Is it the massacre of the protesters? Is it perhaps the desire for regime change?
https://thefederalist.com/2026/02/27/trump-said-we-obliterated-irans-nuclear-program-last-june-so-why-are-we-about-to-go-war/
I hope the Trump administration is right, and this war is indeed over in three weeks. But the critical questions asked by the solidly conservative Federalist give me a lot of pause. Because was there not an election promise to stay out of endless (elective) wars in the Middle East?
No doubt. All I can say is Iran is what we were told Iraq was. I think.
Which ethics lessons have we drawn from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Every war is different, and it is a mistake to try to re-fight an earlier one to win a new one.
How do these lessons apply to the war we just started with Iran? They don’t.
I doubt that you can get away with that response at West Point. They still study Napoleon and Clausewitz over there, and analyzing wars like in Vietnam and Iraq is part of the curriculum.
Let’s agree that history never repeats itself exactly, but it definitely rhymes.
Let me mention one ethics issue: group think and confirmation bias. Of course the Trump Deranged are guilty as hell on that point. And Tucker Carlson of course. What they say and write is utterly predictable. I see the same thing happening on the right, e.g. at Instapundit, Townhall, and also at Ethics Alarms. Dunking at the Trump Deranged is fun; I love it myself. However this activity is not very insightful from an ethics perspective.
Group think and confirmation bias have dangers: it precludes a sober analysis, and listening to opinions and analysis that is unpopular and critical of the consensus. The polarization in our society may give rise to a bunker mentality. This will blind the decision makers to signals they’d rather ignore.
There is something we knew up until the Korean war and we unlearned since. You’ve covered this, Jack, before. I’ll paraphrase it as: War is unethical by its nature. But once you fight a war, the most ethical approach is to fight it to win it.
We’ve seen 90 years of war in Israel due to not learning this lesson. I think we failed in Afghanistan by not using this rule. I think it hurt us in Iraq, although the outcome there seems better.
We should not indiscriminately kill civilians like we did in WWII, true. But we shouldn’t be so shy to not kill those who are openly demonstrating against us. We had plenty of opportunities to kill many who later caused us trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is both the direct effect of reduction in those who oppose you, and the demonstration to others that perhaps they should pick our side over the other one.
This is something that is very hard in Iran, from the perspective that so many of the citizens are on our side and we want to be careful to not hurt those that side with us. But straight up trying to destroy every semblance of Islamic Republic in the country should be done with vigor.
At Friday, before the war in Iran started, John D Davidson at the Federalist asked some very critical questions about the justification offered by Trump for a potential war in Iraq. Is it the nuclear weapons program? Was this problem not already fixed in June? Is it the massacre of the protesters? Is it perhaps the desire for regime change?
The notion of needing “justification” is in truth a false notion. Power makes decisions, and really power does not require the sort of justifications a moral person requires. Truthful analysis and truthful statements about the Middle East can only be made when the issue of raw, determining power is understood. The Middle East is a domain of America’s exercise of determining power. It is (largely) that simple.
However, this does not change the fact that it will be wonderful if 1) the nuclear bomb potential is forever taken away from Iran, and 2) if it turns out that modern social and political forces can re-determine Iran present and future.
However, if turmoil results, and years of conflict, bombings, assassinations and even terror plots, and everything falls into chaos, that is still an overall “good” for the main beneficiary of this “regime change”: Israel. The Jewish Zionist billionaires helped get Donald Trump into power and everyone knows that the hope for radical actions was their objective. Real power and big money all work together, and it really doesn’t have much to do with the health of the American people not to a genuine (and ethical) patriotism. The pride and celebrations are jingoist overall and they are stimulated and encouraged by media (propaganda) businesses.
(I like to believe that I am seeing the truth and telling the when I state things in this way.)
Will there be economic benefit to America by destroying the Regime? Doesn’t that remain to be seen? What if the operation in the long-term results in economic loss? That does not matter because the object is not “economic gain” but rather the elimination of a troublesome Regime.
At least today one has to admire Trump audacious use of power. Since it appears to have begun as a successful operation. They decapitated the entire government and if killing another thousand or ten thousand “hard-liners” is required that will fit in to the program.
Am Yisrael Chai
I do not agree with every thing you say, but I like the way you think (speaking as somebody with a positive interest mixed with fascination for Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Bismarck). I am just puzzled by your remarks against Zionism though. Jews in the USA overwhelmingly voted against Trump and financially support the Democrats.
I am not certain if I believe completely everything I say, I just do not want to think in forced, standard ways.
I have dual loyalty as it pertains to Judaism, the God of Israel, and Jewish assertion. Similarly, I have big issues with (Machiavellian type) power, but I am deeply complicit because I want “my side” to win even if it is by way of injustice.
The discussions on this forum (and many others — most!) are rehearsals of binary views. This is fine for thinking necessary for political and rhetorical motivation, but genuine thinking cannot fall into the binary trap.
As a “daughter of Seth” I try to stand apart, but my style of perception might not be very helpful in present battles (which require taking sides).
I think you do a great job in your posts and I always read them at least twice.
Article: “Trump Said We ‘Obliterated’ Iran’s Nuclear Program Last June. So Why Are We About To Go War?”
“The administration’s justifications for action against Iran keep shifting. Why can’t we get a straight answer?”
Not a very bright set of questions. Because Trump says many exaggerated things before 10:00 AM every morning. Therefore nothing he declares in his Trumpian tone can ever be taken seriously. You have to listen, then go sit down and think it over, and then re-arrange the statement to reflect “reality”.
Only a child desires a “straight answer”. The very basic tenet of fourth and fifth generation warfare is “straight answers are eliminated”. Sideways and upside down answers are the order of the time we are in.
None of this — none! — has realky to do with values of the Republic. That Republic has been superseded (this being my theory). Real government is not in the hands of government but power standing behind government.
It is a glorious brave new world.
No those are NOT stupid questions.
In a constitutional republic such as the USA it behooves the President of the USA to make the case for war clear to the citizens of this nation. Lack of support from the population can sink a war. The Vietnam war offers a good example. In 1964 during the Kennedy administration the United States got militarily involved in Vietnam after the Tonkin Gulf incident, as USA military ships thought they were attacked by North-Vietnamese boats (which turned out to be false). During the Johnson administration the war escalated. On February 27, 1968, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, delivered a very pessimist assessment of the Vietnam War, calling the war a stalemate, and concluded that negotiation was the only rational path out of the war. Cronkite’s editorial marked a turning point in political opinion, and President Lyndon B. Johnson to privately remarked, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America”. Johnson also choose not to run for President again. War protests rocked the USA. Fifty thousand USA soldiers died in that war. In 1975 the USA threw in the towel as the war has lost support in the USA, left South Vietnam to its own devices. Soon thereafter the communists took over in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
In 1973 Congress adopted the War Powers Act over a veto of President Nixon. This act checks the Presidents power to commit the USA to an armed conflict without approval of Congress. In 2003 President George Bush did go to Congress to ask approval for the war effort in Iraq. (Barack Obama did NOT ask for support for his war efforts in Libya!!).
Here is an essential difference between how Russia can fight a protracted war in Ukraine with 25000 casualties per month, and how the USA needs to fight a war. Putin is a dictator does not have to worry about elections and congresses; he can choose to fight to the bitter end, until he is deposed in a coup or decisively defeated. The President of the USA needs to worry about elections and Congress, as Congress has the power to deny funding, and the next President can decide to cut and run as Biden did with Afghanistan.
The article below (National Review) which supports the war efforts in Iran, expresses doubts about how President Trump makes the case.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/donald-trump-needs-to-explain-himself-further-to-the-american-people/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=third
The question remains would a complex explanation of the geopolitical strategy in dealing with Iran be understood by the vasty majority of citizens many of whom could not find Iran or even the Pacific ocean on a map without labels.
Far too many in our society are the poster children for the populace in the film Idiocracy.
Western countries can be their own worst enemies when it comes to winning wars. Once the dice is thrown and a country is committed to war the country needs to be single-minded in their pursuit of ending the war on favorable terms. An “All speed ahead damn the torpedoes” approach often works best.
Problem one for Western countries with democratically elected government is that public opinion may be divided. That means that the current administration also need to focus on the next election, when a electoral loss may mean that a next administration may undo the war effort, as Joe Biden did with Afghanistan. The USA faces such a risk, given the lack of support and loyalty by the opposition, the bias of the media, and the Trump derangement of many Americans.
Problem two is deference to international law, Geneva conventions, rules of engagement, plus opinions of other nations and international bodies that do not care about the national interest of the USA. This is something that affects the USA but mainly Israel. Israel has the military power to wipe Gaza off the map. They could have implemented a Carthaginian solution to enforce enduring peace. But they have not done so because the Israeli government always allowed themselves to be restrained by (international) opinion.
This makes it much more important to make the case for war and have the population on your side.
No those are NOT stupid questions.
What I said had an ironic note in it. Because the real reasons for attacking Iran are not reducible to the war propaganda narratives that were and are used to excite populations to ‘support’ any war. And that publication should know that. Here, as we ponder this war now going against Iran, we inevitably are ‘taking a side’ because we are taught to personalize geo-political struggles.
The on-going war against Iran is absolutely illegal, absolutely “against the rules” (Steve in NJ wisely pointed out that only the rulers make the rules, international law is to be laughed at), just in the sense that Israel’s many many assassinations all over the world are technically illegal. Assassination is proper and good for Israel, but not for anyone else.
So why bother with justifications? If there is a justifiable reason to undermine or even to destroy Iran, it can only be that — possibly — Iran can be made relatively docile for our “outpost” called Israel. (Obviously, it will not go as easy as they say. There will be years of guerrilla operations against a new regime, as in Iraq. This is desired).
And it is very wealthy Zionist Jewry in the US that have the vision of taming the Middle East. And if you know Jewish history, you know that America is an opportunity for Jewry that had never been available throughout the Diaspora. The God of Israel luvs the United States. And trust me: powerful Jews are making the most of the opportunity.
These are some of the truthful facts about why Iran must be domado.
I may be dreaming or hoping too much, or simply exhausted by the left’s endless antics, but I really think we may be reaching a tipping point, I’ll call it maximum left. Isn’t that what people were calling the point where the world had found all the oil there is in the world and it was beginning to decline? Lately, I think the left has shown itself to be so bat shit crazy that people are no longer ignoring the man behind the curtain. But I may be delusional.
Our ultra-strange sometimes friend John Fetterman has once again bucked his party and come out in support of Trump on this Iran action.
Many who wish to avoid war call for diplomacy. If diplomacy is simply a fancy term for negotiation and that one party is known to continually lie to his opponent for the sake of avoiding consequences and then routinely breaks any agreements how does one obtain a solid negotiated settlement with such a party? The answer is you cannot unless you have a big stick.
When people choose to behave in a manner that violate the rules of society we impose penalties. Some are misdemeanor infractions that can result in fines or even some limited jail time, More serious violations are felonies that carry much more severe sanctions. In most cases we have escalating punishments up to capital punishment. And repeat offenders see escalating prison terms for the same offense
When countries fail to behave in a peaceful we seek diplomatic solutions first. When those attempts to redirect behavior fail we impose escalating sanctions. Ultimately, if the behavior represents an existential threat to other nations we use our military to end the behaviors. If that means regime change in the end that will be the goal.
We have been played for fools for over 40 years. We have been at the negotiating table since they took our embassy personnel. They have never lived up to any of the agreements made and find some international slight to abrogate the agreements. The JCPOA was a toothless agreement designed to give cover to a previous administration’s inability to end their nuclear program and did absolutely nothing to address their ballistic missile development.
While we want to avoid using the big stick, sometimes the big stick must come down hard on repeat offenders.
This is an excellent summation of my thoughts, Chris…written much better than I could have.
The main question that should always be asked with calls for diplomacies and ceasefires is “Who benefits?”. It is clear that Iran would benefit from a ceasefire and from peace talks. Often the sympathies of those who make such calls is all too transparent.
CVB
Glenn Reynolds posted an essay on his Substack column which may provide some answers to some of your earlier questions.
https://open.substack.com/pub/instapundit/p/cutting-off-the-head-of-the-snake?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
One part that struck me was this: ” Why didn’t we do this before? Part of that is because the foreign policy establishment, like the domestic policy establishment, doesn’t exist to solve problems. It exists to manage those problems in ways that keep its members cushily employed. To, in Myres McDougal’s words, “maintain tensions at a level short of unacceptable violence.”
I can attest to this because when I sought to solve problems in a bureaucracy I was stymied by those who were concerned about protecting their jobs. This is why no one seeks to help the so called disenfranchised become enfranchised (voting) by helping them get a photo ID and would rather spend scarce resources on litigation to prevent them from needing one. It is why we allow people to buy junk food or highly processed foods with taxpayer provided programs to prevent hunger instead of requiring the purchase of whole nutrient dense foods that would prevent obesity and myriad other health problems.
In short, ensuring that the problems are merely managed provides those doling out the money long term employment.
2026 Sincere Prayer
“May the algorithms, designed and implemented by the dubiously ethical sons of Cain, guide me through my news feed to see and assimilate the understanding of things that will help America become great again. May the God of Judea preside in my mind and heart and may my rooting be pure and resonant. Amen.”
As for the “entire Arab world” hating Iran we should at least fundamentally recognize they don’t hate Iran for some noble reasons like opposing Iranian proxy terror groups or Iran’s hatred of the United States or Israel.
They hate Iran for largely ethnic reasons and because Iran is primarily Shiite Muslims and the vast majority of Arab Muslims are Sunnis.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
That aphorism bugs me. It’s false. There are some conflicts where I want to see both sides to lose, or at least for the winner to be weakened by it when it ends. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy and nothing more. I may exploit their conflict, and one may be less intolerable than the other, but that does not make them a friend.
It just occurred to me that there’s a connection to cognitive dissonance there. Being opposed by my enemy can raise my opinion of you even if it’s wholly undeserved.
Yes, the scale works that way too.
Perhaps a better phrasing might be “The enemy of my enemy is my ally.”
Not always, of course, but I think there is an element of truth to it.
Correct. Eastern front WW2 would be a great example of hoping Nazis and communists consumed each other completely.
But alas, geopolitical arrangements being as they were made allying with the USSR semi logical and our commie-loving president greased the skids.
They already abandoned intersectionality regarding the LGBTxyz crowd when it comes to the middle east. “Gays for Gaza” has to be one of the most idiotic, brain dead groups to ever exist. The idiots defend people who would kill them for their nationality, religion AND sexual orientation / gender identity. They consider immigrants the ultimate victim, even if these immigrants victimize women, other minorities, or gay people. Men are bad, but that is redeemed by being an immigrant.
These are the same morons who can simultaneously hold the position “I pick the bear because men are dangerous” and “If a person’s gender identity is female, they can put on a dress and join me in the locker room.” Yep, “not all men, but enough” are such a risk, because men are so devious and dangerous. But not one of those dangerous men, never, ever, would consider faking gender identity in the pursuit of their evil goals.
So basically, morons. I’m no fan of Michael Savage, but he’s right when he declared: liberalism is a mental disorder.