Not Iran Again!

Well, here we are. By the time this edition of the Gazette hits the streets, we will already be in May. Time flies for sure. For me, it has been a slightly challenging 2026 thus far but I can definitely see light at the end of the tunnel and it does not appear to be a train headed in my direction. In my very first Robservation way back in 2010, I wrote an entire column on the potential of war with Iran. In all, this is my fourth Robservation on the topic. 16 years after my first, here we are; at war with Iran. I will be honest. I am a little torn. As someone who taught operational planning for over a decade at Maxwell, I see certain things that have me shaking my head while at the same time, I see things that utterly impress the living heck out of me. Although we have suffered some casualties, it is war by the way, our military is simply, phenomenal. As with most wars, however, shortcomings usually crop up above the pay grade of the young men and women who are charged with killing and dying. I hated seeing that AWACS blown apart on the ramp and I am interested in seeing the accident report, if it is ever released, about the KC-135 midair. Why? Because I have about 4,500 hours flying those two aircraft.

These are just some of the questions I continue asking myself relating to the Iranian war or the stupid name, Operation Epic Fury. Our objectives. Are they clearly defined, measurable, attainable and decisive? Are they consistent over the three levels of war – tactical, operational, and strategic? Do they support one another? If they do not have those attributes, they are worthless objectives – doctrinally speaking. Do the strategies we are using support their objectives? What of our end state goals? To be honest, I think our current planners have done a fantastic job in these areas and I am only willing to question some. For another day, however. My biggest question comes down to Iran being allowed to have nuclear weapons. Do we have the right to say to them, “No, you cannot have them?” Or should we be limited to saying, “You can have them but the moment you try to use them against us or any of our Allies, your country will cease to exist?” This is just a question and I see both sides but I lean toward option 1. Winston Churchill’s 5 March 1946 Iron Curtain speck sums it up better than I ever could. Just substitute neo-Fascist and communist with crazy rogue Muslim regime.

“It would nevertheless be wrong and imprudent to entrust the secret knowledge or experience of the atomic bomb, which the United States, Great Britain, and Canada now share, to the world organization, while it is still in its infancy. It would be criminal madness to cast it adrift in this still agitated and un-united world. No one in any county has slept less well in their beds because this knowledge and the method and the raw materials to apply it, are at present largely retained in American hands. I do not believe we should all have slept so soundly had the positions been reversed and if some Communist or neo-Fascist State monopolized for the time being these dread agencies. The fear of them alone might easily have been used to enforce totalitarian systems upon the free democratic world, with consequences appalling to human imagination. God has willed that this shall not be and we have at least a breathing space to set our house in order before this peril has to be encountered: and even then, if no effort is spared, we should still possess so formidable a superiority as to impose effective deterrents upon its employment, or threat of employment, by others. . .

“From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness. For that reason, the old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound. We cannot afford, if we can help it, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength. If the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering those principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If, however, they [the UN] become divided or falter in their duty (italics added) and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us.” Robert Rhodes James, MP. Churchill Speaks 1897-1963: Collected Speeches in Peace and War. 1998. Barnes and Noble Books. New York.

I have used the following analogy in the past so bear with me. Let’s say that I move into a subdivision and my closest neighbor really does not like my brown skin. In fact, he hates it. He hates it even more when he sees my non-Black wife and our, in his words, “mongrel children,” playing in the yard. He goes about telling everyone he hates me and my family. The first chance he gets, he is going to kill all of us. Not only this, but now he begins to threaten my friends and other family members around town. Emboldened, he puts threatening notes on my house and threatens my kids when they are outside. He even organizes a march in front of my house with his equally hateful friends. Although I go to the police (i.e. the U.N.), they do nothing. They tell me to go away and shut the heck up. Not their problem. As the threats continue, my neighbor builds up a stockpile of weapons in his house. Guns, ammo, explosives, you name it. And now he continues to boast to the glorious day that he is going to kill me and my family. He goes so far as to give weapons to other neighbors and they join in on the verbal threats and occasionally the physical ones. Broken windows, a killed dog, keying my car, etc. No other neighbors attempt to intervene. The police (U.N.) continue to sit on their arses and so nothing. These threats and occasional violence continue for years. No matter how many times I complain, I am told to shut up and color.

Finally, after years of abuse, years of threats, and seeing the obvious direction this situation is escalating, do I now have the right to preempt my neighbor’s plan and kill him before he kills me and my family? Personally, I think the answer to that is “yes,” a big 10-4. Does this analogy flow perfectly into confrontations between nations? That is up for debate. But let’s not forget, in Mein Kampf, Uncle Adolf pretty much called his shots. I for one am willing to take these guys at their word. If someone chants death to America for over 40 years, I am willing to sleep with one eye open a finger near the trigger so to speak.

We will see. But there is one thing for sure and is something most of us will agree on. Whether you voted for Trump or not, and I did, someone needs to take his devices away from him at night and tell to shut up every now and then. Actually, often. He runs his mouth and says things that are just not accurate. My biggest peeve, is when he first stated the war would be over in 2-3 weeks. 2-3 weeks later, it was another 2-3 weeks. The point, there is no need to even say this. He seemingly forgets one big thing; the Iranians have a say in when the war will end. The enemy ALWAYS does. You cannot decide for them when they have had enough pounding. You can’t. After the Battle of Kursk in July 1943, by all practical measures, the Germans should have surrendered yet they fought on for another 22 months knowing they could not win the war. Who knows how much Iran is willing to take. Are they just willing to wait us out before the War Powers Act becomes an issue or knowing the American personality, we will eventually get tired and go home? In Vietnam, we thought that killing 10 Vietnamese for every one soldier we lost would get us the victory. The Vietnamese thought that if they could kill one American for every ten soldiers they lost, we would get tired and eventually to home. They were right. Just keep this in mind. What is the primary strategic objective of any regime? The answer, to stay in power no matter what it takes. Even if that means taking their people down with them when the end is inevitable. Just think of Hitler’s March 1945 Nero Decree.

Regardless, I am willing to say that war sucks. That being said, it is also at times necessary. I just hope that this one ends soon but now that we are in it, we cannot afford to stop before all strategic objectives have been fulfilled. If we do, what was the purpose? Time will tell. Once the war is over, I will likely readdress the topic. I’m out.

THE VIEWS OF SUBMITTED EDITORIALS MAY NOT BE THE EXPRESS VIEWS OF THE ALABAMA GAZETTE.