In principle, the author is right about the Iranian regime and about many Muslim-majority countries in general. He has a valid point, and his desire to see his people freed from oppression is understandable.
However, America cannot always act as the world’s liberator or policeman. We have done what we reasonably could in the past. While our interventions have often included national self-interest, they were also driven by a genuine desire to do the right thing.
We cannot invade every oppressive regime — Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. We simply do not have the resources, nor should we sacrifice thousands of American lives in endless ground wars to free other nations.
To the Iranian people: We gave you an opportunity to arm yourselves and rise up against your oppressors, just as Americans did in 1776. But we cannot be the world’s permanent military force. It is not fair to our own citizens and our children to bear that burden indefinitely.
I personally supported targeted airstrikes against the regime, but not a full ground invasion. Even when the cause is just, American troops swear an oath to defend the United States and its Constitution, not to serve as global freedom fighters.
This is the bitter irony: the more America tries to help others, the more resentment and hatred it often receives in return. Many refuse to acknowledge that our actions, even when motivated partly by self-interest, were also morally grounded.
Europe, for its part, not only failed to support us but revealed that it has largely abandoned principled action — the kind it showed in the decades following World War II. Instead, it now seems driven primarily by globalist agendas rather than clear-eyed national interest.
CMC
.
In reply to @mcucolo57 in post: https://x.com/mcucolo57/status/2045157242584908041?s=20
