Disabling Iran’s Nuclear Capacity and Heeding the Lessons of History
Undoubtedly, their collaborative effort to disarm Iran will stand as an extraordinary example of learning from the past to safeguard the future.
Winston Churchill once said, “Everyone can recognize history when it happens. Everyone can recognize history after it has happened; but it is only the wise person who knows at the moment what is vital and permanent, what is lasting and memorable.”
In his 1967 book, Variety of Men, British novelist and scientist C.P. Snow observed:
Judgment is a fine thing: but it is not all that uncommon. Deep insight is much rarer. Churchill had flashes of that kind of insight, dug up from his own nature, independent of influences, owing nothing to anyone outside himself. Sometimes it is a better guide than judgment: in the ultimate crisis when he came to power, there were times when judgment itself could, though it did not need to, become a source of weakness.
When Hitler came to power, Churchill did not use judgment but one of his deep insights. This was absolute danger, there was no easy way round. That was what we needed. It was a unique occasion in our history. It had to be grasped by a nationalist leader. Plenty of people on the left could see the danger, but they did not know how the country had to be seized and unified.
The recent, masterfully executed effort to neutralize Iran’s nuclear capability is a rare instance of heeding the lessons of history. Both Israel’s and America’s leaders showed remarkable insight and managed to prevent a grave danger for the free world and global stability.
To understand the magnitude of this achievement, it would be helpful to imagine what would have happened if Hitler had succeeded in developing nuclear weapons. Churchill would not have hesitated to do what Trump and Netanyahu have accomplished. The rabid anti-Semitism promoted by the Islamist regime in Iran is fully commensurate with that of Nazi Germany. It is further compounded by equally fanatic hatred of America and Western civilization. The free world has no choice but to take timely preventive measures to defend itself and its way of life.
Of course, the level of Trump- and Netanyahu-derangement syndrome displayed by leftist politicians, media outlets, and pundits has engendered much negative coverage that completely misrepresents and diminishes the impact of this swift, precise, and effective preemptive measure.
Such criticism is nothing new and should be recognized and exposed for its malicious falsehoods. As Margaret Thatcher once famously quipped, “If my critics saw me walking over the Thames, they would say it was because I couldn’t swim.”
No matter how great the actions of Trump and Netanyahu may be, their detractors would sooner see their countries burn than grant these two leaders the recognition they deserve. Undoubtedly, their collaborative effort to disarm Iran will stand as an extraordinary example of learning from the past to safeguard the future.
Nora D. Clinton is a Research Scholar at the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
As strange as it sounds the forced nuclear disarmament of Iran by Israel and the US is worthy of a Nobel peace prize as it very likely stopped (or at east delayed) multiple wars, It also probably postponed several holocausts resulting from the Iranian nuke of Israel and a Israel second strike on Iran and perhaps other Islamic countries. They won’t award it for such though because the Norwegians are short sighted elitist progressives who would rather blow up the award rather than recognize either Trump or Netanyahu.
Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. Even Obama has one for his work (surrender) with the muslim world.
Obama received his Nobel for being black, not for anything he’d accomplished. It was handed to him prior to his obeisance to the Islamic world.
The downvoting troll is at it again.
It’s not just the Left. Many MAGA/American First types see Trump’s attack on Iran as a mistake, they see the malign influence of the Deep State (and the Mossad) on Trump. These people don’t understand Trump wasn’t starting a war with Iran, but he very may likely have ended one, because Iran has been at war with the US for more than four decades. This means that the US has been at war with Iran during that time, even if it didn’t acknowledge it. As an act of war against a foreign aggressor at war with the US, Trump’s attack on Iran is completely within the scope of America First – a military excursion in America’s interests against an enemy of America, with little to no regard for what the rest of the world thinks (or at least without the approval of the rest of the world before the action).
Does the attack align with the desire of nefarious, ill-intentioned actors? Almost certainly, although probably only to a limited degree. Sometimes a necessary act, taken in good faith, can have the appearance of an unnecessary act taken in bad faith by bad actors. But intent and purpose matter, as does context. In the context of a decades-old Iran-US war, Trump’s act was necessary and justified for the benefit of America, no matter who else may have also benefitted from it.
we were under attack from iran
a silent america is tacit approval
the blmplo riots proves that..where the local police lay low and “give them room to destroy”
a limited strike by the usa to finish off the job was called for …whether or not israel could have done the complete job on its own
having said that
we should NOT ENGAGE just to engage…same with the tariffs
djt didnt put tariffs on the others
he reciprocated
we are always under attack b/c of our values system ESPECIALLY insomuch that its NOT ISLAMIC (yet??)
Trump did not “engage just to engage.” Israel’s attacks created an opportunity that may not ever arise again. Rather than “engaging” in response to a specific incident, Trump seized an opportunity (leaving some question as to whether or not US aircraft got in and got out without drawing a response was due to their technological abilities or due to Israel’s near-complete destruction of Iran’s air defense systems – leaving doubt in the minds of other opponents about the ability of our technology). (Recall that Bill Clinton had an opportunity to eliminate Bin Laden and didn’t take it. How did that turn out?)
Iran has been threatening the US, its military, and its assets on the high seas with destruction for decades. They were developing nuclear weapons. In this context, preventing them from developing nuclear weapons would seem a reasonable response. Timing was determined by circumstances (which includes not just Israel’s campaign against Iranian air defenses, but also Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium beyond that which is needed for commercial power purposes – whether it was two months or two years from building nuclear weapons notwithstanding).
There are those who can’t see what is right in front of them. The quote from Maggie Thatcher reminds me of a saying from my mother: Some people, if they died and went to Heaven tonight, would fuss and complain because the lights are too bright.
.
iran could have been disarmed decades ago
but the lefts influence in america has been growing stronger and stronger so there was no need to stop a potential ally ..of the left
from the river to the sea is a staple of the lefts agenda
Still owe them bigly for Beirut.
putin drawing trump into sending weapons to Z
dont like it
let the eurotrash take care of this
and lets first PROVE THAT THE NATO “ALLIES” are actually giving 5% for their own g—-ddddd. defense
Exactly. Like Trump and his supporters have been saying, Ukraine started the war by invading Russia!!!
Trump: We completely and totally obliterated Iran’s nuclear bomb facilities,
On second thought: Well, we set them back by a decade.
On third thought, Well, we set them back by a few years.
On fourth thought, Well, we at least set them back by several months.
God forbid that Trump has any more thoughts on the matter.