Critics of President Trump on both sides of the isle declare that we had no reason to go to war with Iran as they did not pose an immediate threat to the US. I suggest that if you are of that persuasion you might want to think it through before you say so!

Are you really willing to die on that hill?

The foolishness of such drivel is so easily exposed it is hard to imagine why anyone would say it in the first place, or why it has not been thoroughly repudiated to date.

Before I do so, I will note the obvious fact that we have been in a one-sided war for nearly fifty years: Iran has been killing our citizens and soldiers for decades while our leaders have largely turned a blind eye. Such a scenario should have been sufficient cause for triggering a response years ago, but that is not the basis of my argument.

In what twisted reality would we wait until a clearly foreseeable disaster of this scale was upon us before we acted?  Imagine a fire raging near your home, but someone argues that it is not a concern until the flames are licking at your windows? Or suppose that there is a marauding, man-eating tiger running in the nearby forest, but we must wait until it has pinned our child to the ground before we are free to eliminate it?

Oh, I’ve got it!

You’ve been diagnosed with stage one prostate cancer, but it poses no immediate threat. So why waste the resources and risk a bad reaction to the treatment at this time? Rather, you should wait until it’s stage four and poses an immediate threat, right? Like that makes sense!

To allow the “bad guy” to shoot first may work fine in fantasyland Hollywood, or in a contest between two individuals, but when hostile countries have major weapon systems directed at our shores and are developing nuclear weapons, such “fairness” becomes suicidal. Are we to believe that our intelligence agencies can precisely determine when threats from enemy forces become imminent? Such an idea defies all that we know about the Iranian leadership and about war in general. We might as well suggest they notify us of the date and targets of their next attack!

Rather, we can be sure that they, like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, would seek the element of surprise to hopefully overwhelm our defenses.

While our intelligence agencies may be the best in the world, they do not know what they do not know. To assume that the information they possess regarding Iran’s intentions and capabilities is precise and comprehensive is dangerously naïve and imprudent.

How is it that anyone would suggest, even demand, then, that we must wait until Iran poses an imminent threat before we act? Have we lost our collective minds? Do those who make such suggestions care nothing at all for the multitudes of Americans whose lives would potentially be sacrificed due to such procrastination?

No one on either side of the debate is discounting the ability of the Iranian military to inflict damage on America. No one is denying that Iran had, and still possesses, weapons that are a threat to Israel, the region and potentially even the continental United States. The risk was so real that many on the left, with hair on fire, question why we would escalate the conflict with them when they are capable of inflicting such serious damage on us or other nations in the region!

They point to our fallen soldiers and declare, “We should have waited!”

Apparently, their council is that America should do nothing until Iran has greater weaponry and larger stockpiles of missiles so that they can inflict more damage and kill more of our military personnel?

Sure! That makes sense. . . if you are Iran!

So, what is their point? Are they saying we should just ignore Iran’s arms buildup? Really? For what reason? So that they can become the undisputed masters of the Middle East?

Maybe that is the real objective of the American Left! Not so far-fetched when we recall the pallets of cash and other gifts Democrat leaders sent to Iran over the last twenty years!

It is one thing for a compassionate boxer to allow his opponent to recover from a severe blow before striking him again. It is utter foolishness for America to allow mortal enemies, who have sworn that they will destroy us, and who have repeatedly attacked us over the last five decades, to gain sufficient armaments to where they believe they have a real chance against us!

How can such thinking be anything other than treasonous? Are those who say such things so dull of wit to think we must make it a “fair fight,” and allow Iran the ability to potentially destroy us, or to be capable of inflicting a high casualty count before we engage them?

Every war has a toll. It cannot be otherwise. But America’s leaders must protect Americans first. Why this is considered debatable is absurd. If there are to be casualties, let them be on the side of those who hatemonger, slaughter their own citizens, and threaten the wellbeing of the region and the world, not our brothers and sisters.

We can sympathize for Iranian citizens who live under such evil, but our first responsibility is to American citizens.

We hear repeatedly, “no one wants war!”

Again, such thoughtless drivel!  Many nations in the Mideast, Russia, China and elsewhere are governed by people who have no such scruples. War is merely a tool in their arsenal to be used when the time is right. The religious and political leaders of Iran have no qualms about sending their young men to die in battle, or about slaughtering anyone who opposes their death-dealing ways. With such people we have no alternative but preemption.

To follow those who declare that we were in no imminent danger from Iran would lead to the scenario where they would have not only a huge inventory of conventional weapons and missiles but potentially nuclear warheads as well.  A patriotic president could not dither! To allow Iran the possibility of a catastrophic first strike is too reminiscent of Pearl Harbor.

The human cost would be unimaginable!