|
Trending Topics
|
The Case for Cautious Optimism about the War in Iran
(Wall Street Journal) Gerard Baker - As critics assail Mr. Trump for the supposed lawlessness of this campaign, it's important to address the moral and legal case for action first, and to note that Iran's government has been responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any other in the past 50 years. From its outset in 1979, the Islamic Republic has made murdering Americans among its highest priorities. Under the principle of self-defense, action taken against a regime that has killed so many of our own citizens is legitimate, not simply for retributive justice, but to prevent further killings. When a tyrannical, homicidal regime has been committed to killing you for decades, regime change is self-evidently the most desirable outcome. We are all familiar with the historical record: Achieving regime change through air power alone is an extraordinarily long probability. But even if this new round of punishment for Iran fails to dislodge the regime, the further damage we can deal to it can only weaken it still further. So if regime change doesn't come now, what kind of regime survives? Leaderless, impoverished, isolated, besieged, mostly disarmed, is Iran likely to be stronger after being on the receiving end of a campaign from the most technologically sophisticated and best-equipped militaries in the world?