While the critical importance of the Iran conflict is obvious to experienced national security experts, the unprincipled political opposition has been louder and more attractive to normal citizens whose only immediate concern is gasoline prices.
In a world of 15-second attention spans, lacking any evidence of sequential thought, the overwhelmingly stronger pro-conflict case must be spoon-fed to the electorate as midterm elections approach.
From Plato to our Founding Fathers to President Woodrow Wilson to modern commentators, the irrational mentality of society’s masses has always posed the greatest challenge to wise democratic decision-making. The case, even more so in today’s attention-deficit environment, for important national security decisions must be made in a simple, step-by-15-second-step process that appeals to a democratic majority.
Recall that the United States stayed out of World War I until Wilson effectively portrayed it as keeping the world safe for democracy. And later, only the bombing of Pearl Harbor during World War II brought home to Americans the need to join our allies.
Today, success in neutralizing Iran’s nuclear threat is essential, not only to prevent nuclear blackmail or destruction, but also to protect our domestic economy and global security. So, how should principled politicians, public commentators, concerned citizens, and, most importantly, President Donald Trump, sell the existential importance of this conflict?
A few suggestions for plain-spoken advocacy, with claim only to common sense, not elitist superiority, are proffered here.
Iran’s goal of controlling the Strait of Hormuz did not arise because of the recent conflict. The post hoc notion has been mooted that the recent bombings caused the Iranian attempt to control the strait and charge extortionate tolls. The current conflict may have been a catalyst for action, but the strategy was clearly already in place, waiting until the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had nuclear capability. Negotiations revealed that Iran wished to retain the right to charge tolls into the foreseeable future, even under a peace agreement. That it was a nonnegotiable demand in ceasefire discussions proves that control of strait transit had been a preexisting strategic objective, not caused by the recent conflict.
If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, U.S. pump prices would dramatically and permanently increase. It took Iran years to develop the uranium-enrichment infrastructure and stockpiles that enabled it to reach 20% enrichment. As enrichment levels rise, enrichment becomes easier, such that going from 60% to 90% weapons grade is a four-week process. All Iran then would need is a delivery warhead, not difficult, and likely already near operational. Extortion in the strait would have been a permanent condition, escalating pump prices.
Destroying the Iranian regime weakens China. After Vice President JD Vance’s disastrous peace agreement, China provided both weapons and intelligence assistance to Iran during the ceasefire, using sanctions-free billions of dollars allowed by the deal. At the same time, Iran has been a reliable source of energy for oil-poor China. But success against the regime would allow America to control access. China would then only have a weakened Russia as a reliable supplier of crude oil, which would weaken China. America must not strengthen China to the point where we lose the prosperity of American AI dominance. Contending with a revivified Iran would also implicate two potential theaters of conflict, and American strength would be sorely tested.
Taiwan is crucial to the U.S.’s prosperity and must be protected. Taiwan is more than a manufacturing hub for advanced logic semiconductors, which itself makes the country a necessary ally. It is also the center of a wide web of necessary ancillary skills and technologies for designing and stacking AI chips.
While the Iran conflict spends dollars today, such investment will massively benefit America as well as less-developed countries. A good investment does not pay off immediately — its value lies in generating a future return on the capital invested. If China disrupts AI but stays second fiddle to the U.S., if there is no threat to Taiwan, if oil supplies are abundant and inexpensive, and if the rest of the world can develop wealth under peaceful conditions, ordinary America would be more prosperous than ever. As the poorer nations also prosper, American products and technology will lead the world and benefit the less fortunate far more than any social program.
Victory over the Iranian regime will make America wealthier and safer, with Israel as its strong regional ally. A victory in the present Iran conflict will, of course, free millions of Iranians from the Guard’s repressive, authoritarian rule. But to America’s benefit, the Iran conflict is an investment in global and regional peace and prosperity, led by an increasingly wealthy and safe America. This is the bottom line.
BLOOD ON THE UN PODIUM: IRAN’S PRESIDENT JUST DEFENDED GENOCIDE TO AN EMPTY ROOM
Broken into small, conceptual doses, the value proposition for the Iran conflict is a no-brainer: The short-term pain of pump prices is an investment in suppressing the repressive Iranian regime, which will, in the long run, make America and the world wealthier and safer. Yes, we have had irreversible Biden-era inflation. But rapid growth and prosperity will help improve affordability and reduce the deficit and interest rates, while employee compensation increases.
Trump must sell these inarguable benefits to a short-attention-span public. Good sense will then win out for all of us.
John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the books Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism and The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened. O’Connor and Mark Felt also collaborated on the 2006 book A G-Man’s Life.