In Western democracies, arguments about the Islamic Republic of Iran increasingly reflect domestic culture wars more than the realities of the Iranian regime.
Let’s cut through the noise. The Islamic Republic isn’t misunderstood—it’s exactly what it says it is: a revolutionary regime that funds terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas while crushing its own citizens. The real distortion happens in the West, where ideological tribes twist every foreign crisis into a domestic culture war. One side reflexively blames America and Israel. The other retreats into isolationism. Both miss the point. When authoritarian regimes test the world order, pretending it’s merely a narrative dispute is dangerous. Democracies must debate policy—but they should at least start from reality instead of ideological theater. Truth comes before slogans.
Hi Richard. I wrote the piece. I’m not sure whether what you wrote seeks to reaffirm what I wrote in the piece or take it to task. Both are fine as far as I’m concerned. You appear to write in an oppositional tone (unless I’m reading into something that’s not there), yet essentially, you reemphasise the points that the article puts forward. I wonder whether your issue (if you have one) is that I am in some way ‘pretending that it is a narrative dispute’. If this is the case, I think you may be misconstruing what I’m saying: I’m not proposing a narrative-based paradigm for approaching foreign policy, but rather observing how common it is for people to (dangerously, I agree) view foreign policy through a narrative lens. All the best.
Brilliant article all the way around! Lots of mental after-action will be required as I re-read it later. That said, despite the gut wrenching loss of Americans, this will be the first time a war (in my 70 year lifetime), has cause that is righteous. Sending soldiers to war with no intention of winning (ie: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam) is ignoble in the highest. THIS President will not let that happen.
Joel Meyer offers excellent insights. I’d add as follows:
For me. There’s a valid distinction between attacking another country because of what they’re doing to you and attacking to correct what they do to their own citizens. Meyer hints at that when he discusses ambivalence about Iranian lives vis a vis their own government l.
The UN, admittedly useless, is a collection of sovereignties not factions therein. Sovereignties are not supposed to interfere with internal affairs of other sovereignties. That’s the norm we call peace.
Thus Israel has every justification to attack Iran and seek regime change to eliminate a direct external enemy threat to Israel, regardless of what the regime does to it’s citizens.The U.S. must make that same case, and I think it can and should.
Regime change is justified whenever the regime is the threat. As it is to Israel directly.
That said, “what happens next” is an internal issue. A selfish sovereign can justifiably say “the threat to me is gone. What happens next to Iran internally is not our concern unless it threatens us anew.”
Perhaps that’s shortsighted, but in a complex world, that may be the best we get. Stay strong and vigilant and let them choose a better path knowing they have to leave us alone or else.
Let’s cut through the noise. The Islamic Republic isn’t misunderstood—it’s exactly what it says it is: a revolutionary regime that funds terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas while crushing its own citizens. The real distortion happens in the West, where ideological tribes twist every foreign crisis into a domestic culture war. One side reflexively blames America and Israel. The other retreats into isolationism. Both miss the point. When authoritarian regimes test the world order, pretending it’s merely a narrative dispute is dangerous. Democracies must debate policy—but they should at least start from reality instead of ideological theater. Truth comes before slogans.
Hi Richard. I wrote the piece. I’m not sure whether what you wrote seeks to reaffirm what I wrote in the piece or take it to task. Both are fine as far as I’m concerned. You appear to write in an oppositional tone (unless I’m reading into something that’s not there), yet essentially, you reemphasise the points that the article puts forward. I wonder whether your issue (if you have one) is that I am in some way ‘pretending that it is a narrative dispute’. If this is the case, I think you may be misconstruing what I’m saying: I’m not proposing a narrative-based paradigm for approaching foreign policy, but rather observing how common it is for people to (dangerously, I agree) view foreign policy through a narrative lens. All the best.
very well stated, Richard!
Clear eyed lucid analysis. People have lost sight of right and wrong.
These are essential points:
Algorithm-driven platforms reward emotionally charged, identity-affirming content, accelerating its spread while setting aside nuance.
Foreign policy becomes an extension of identity politics.
The 1938 Munich Agreement…[shows] avoiding confrontation is not automatically pacifism; sometimes it defers conflict until conditions are worse.
When foreign policy becomes subordinate to domestic culture wars, analysis again gives way to signaling.
Thank you Avraham
Brilliant article all the way around! Lots of mental after-action will be required as I re-read it later. That said, despite the gut wrenching loss of Americans, this will be the first time a war (in my 70 year lifetime), has cause that is righteous. Sending soldiers to war with no intention of winning (ie: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam) is ignoble in the highest. THIS President will not let that happen.
Thank you Pam
Joel Meyer offers excellent insights. I’d add as follows:
For me. There’s a valid distinction between attacking another country because of what they’re doing to you and attacking to correct what they do to their own citizens. Meyer hints at that when he discusses ambivalence about Iranian lives vis a vis their own government l.
The UN, admittedly useless, is a collection of sovereignties not factions therein. Sovereignties are not supposed to interfere with internal affairs of other sovereignties. That’s the norm we call peace.
Thus Israel has every justification to attack Iran and seek regime change to eliminate a direct external enemy threat to Israel, regardless of what the regime does to it’s citizens.The U.S. must make that same case, and I think it can and should.
Regime change is justified whenever the regime is the threat. As it is to Israel directly.
That said, “what happens next” is an internal issue. A selfish sovereign can justifiably say “the threat to me is gone. What happens next to Iran internally is not our concern unless it threatens us anew.”
Perhaps that’s shortsighted, but in a complex world, that may be the best we get. Stay strong and vigilant and let them choose a better path knowing they have to leave us alone or else.
Thank you, ‘Onappeal’. Your analysis is spot on.