An Uncomfortable, But Justified, War

Why wait until the stakes were higher and the consequences immeasurably worse?

By now you probably know that the United States and Israel carried out a coordinated strike on Iran that culminated in the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The operation marked one of the most significant escalations in Middle Eastern geopolitics in decades. Iranian military infrastructure was targeted, leadership compounds in Tehran were destroyed, and the long-standing architect of the Islamic Republic’s regional strategy was eliminated.

The strike was ordered amid mounting tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, regional proxy networks, and continued hostility toward the United States and its allies. In the immediate aftermath, critics labeled the move reckless and illegal, warning of regional destabilization and retaliation. Supporters, by contrast, argued that allowing Iran to cross the nuclear threshold would pose an existential threat not only to Israel but to global security.

At its core, the objective was clear: prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and degrade the command structure responsible for decades of repression and destabilization. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically alter the balance of power in the Middle East, embolden proxy groups, and shield authoritarian expansion behind a nuclear deterrent. At this juncture, I feel like that outcome is simply unacceptable.

However uncomfortable the use of force may be, the alternative — a regime like Khamenei’s armed with nuclear capability — would have been far more dangerous in the long term.

I am broadly anti-war. From a libertarian perspective, skepticism of military intervention is not only understandable but necessary. Endless wars, civilian casualties, executive overreach, and vague regime change missions have cost the United States dearly in blood, treasure, and moral clarity. War should be rare, defensive, and tightly constrained.

I’d like to think that framework, as opposed to being blindly pro-terror and anti-Trump, helps explain the backlash from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose primary “geopolitical” experience likely comes from signing an online Change.org petition or playing Xbox online with someone from Europe at 2AM.

He condemned the strike as an illegal escalation and insisted Americans do not want another war in pursuit of regime change. In that respect, I can actually understand his position. If this is his actual point, it is grounded in real historical failures and real human costs.

But not all uses of force are interchangeable. This was not a vague ideological adventure. Khamenei presided over brutal crackdowns on Iranian protesters, supported proxy militias responsible for regional violence, and advanced a nuclear program in defiance of international constraints. Removing a leader who embodied that system is materially different from launching an open-ended occupation or attempting to redesign a country from scratch.

In Mamdani’s case, what is harder to understand is why a city mayor seems so eager to audition for Secretary of State on social media. Mamdani has no authority over foreign policy. His opinion, though heavily amplified online, carries no operational weight in matters of war and peace. Meanwhile, many Iranian Americans, including some in New York City, have openly celebrated the end of Khamenei’s rule. Their relief complicates the tidy narrative that opposition to the regime automatically equals opposition to the strike.

Mamdani’s line plays well in certain activist circles, but it sidesteps the central issue. Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Repeating the word diplomacy does not neutralize centrifuges. If Mayor Mamdani wishes to continue offering commentary on global geopolitics, he is free to do so. New Yorkers, however, elected him to manage New York City. Foreign policy will be decided in Washington.

War is always tragic. It carries risk and uncertainty. But sometimes refusing to act carries even greater risk. In this case, preventing a nuclear-armed authoritarian regime and removing its longest-serving autocrat was, in my view, a net positive.

Since 1979 Iran has been operating under a banner that says “Death to America”. Nothing about that signals any interest in diplomacy. I know as humans we sometimes have blind spots, but if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, even a 6 year old with a crayon could draw out what the next obvious, logical assumption would be on how they would prefer to use it.

As much as I hate to fluff warmongers like Lindsey Graham and the likes, the reality is that the cost of inaction here would have been far greater that this operation. Allowing Iran to inch closer to a nuclear weapon while responding with statements, sanctions, and sternly worded press releases would not have preserved peace, it would have delayed an inevitable and far more dangerous confrontation.

After four years of what often felt like reactive, hesitant leadership under Joe Biden, watching crises metastasize before being addressed (if ever), it is actually a breath of fresh air to see decisive, front-footed action that prioritizes American interests and the security of our allies. Deterrence only works when it is credible. A limited strike now, aimed at degrading capability and leadership before a nuclear threshold is crossed, is the strategic equivalent of nipping a threat in the bud.

The alternative would have been to wait until the stakes were exponentially higher and the consequences immeasurably worse.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.