Strong opinions (with tiny caveats) supporting the attack on Iran

Recently, the House of Representatives cut down a Democratic-led effort to stop the United States’ war against the Iranian expansive theocratic leadership.

The House rejected, 212-219, a resolution by Republican turncoat Kentucky’s Rep. Thomas Massie and California Democrat and Yalie Ro Khanna, which would mandate an end to the conflict pending Congressional authorization.

The general unwritten legislative understanding has always been that neither party undermines the U.S. during military action, at least until a 60-day period had expired, in order to react effectively militarily to aggressor-nations.

There has also been a generally recognized appreciation in these times of the need for a president to react secretly to some situations to maximize the chances of military success before an enemy nation was ready to resist.

One of this author’s irritations is the ubiquity of published public opinion polls as material evidence as to what the U.S. must do or not do.

We live in a representative democracy, not a pure democracy.

Sometimes – usually? – always? — the pubic ignorance of the reasons and evidence that military action or even war is necessary dictates their withholding their condemnation, at least for a reasonable time.

Until late 1941, less than 1/5 of polled Americans supported the war against the Axis powers. Thus, WWII was unpopular initially, to say the least. Gerald Ford opposed it. You could look it up.

There are prominent Democrats (perhaps now nearly an oxymoron) who say Iran had no imminent prospect of developing and/or launching nuclear weapons.

As President Clinton would have said: ”It depends on what your definition of ‘imminent’ is.”

The Democrats’ solution was to wait.

H. L. Mencken’s quote rings loudly: ”There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.”

A radical theocracy which murders over 40,000 unarmed protesters is unlikely to be led by a Mullah who says: “We cannot preside over such megadeath.”

It is possible that they would just intimidate their neighbors for the foreseeable future.

Or it is possible that Iran would have destroyed Israel in one sneak attack.

Disgusted by Trump’s tasteless and childish rhetoric?

So am I. But that is irrelevant.

Hope the fighting ends soon?

So do I.

Want to see Iranian killing of thousands more and the destruction of Israel and Israelis?

Neither do I.

Do you find Iran’s theocratic leaders interested in “Live and Let Live?”

If you do, you live in a make believe world.

The Quran, like a Rorschach test, can be interpreted as fostering utter intolerance of others who are not Islamic or surprising tolerance of them.

But as former President Richard M. Nixon used to say, judge them “by their actions , not by their words.”

By their actions for almost 50 years, Iran’s theocracy cannot be trusted…indubitably.