Trump's MOU with Iran is a Mistake of Epic Proportions

 This proposed MOU with Iran may be one of the biggest mistakes of Trump's presidency.

I supported Donald Trump every time he was on the ballot, and I continue to support many of his policies. On Iran, however, I believe he is profoundly wrong.

The current Iranian regime should not be rewarded, accommodated, or rehabilitated before it fundamentally changes its behavior. Any reconstruction assistance or normalization of relations should come only after a clear and unconditional abandonment of its hostile policies—not as an incentive in hopes that the regime will suddenly become cooperative.

After World War II, the United States helped rebuild Germany and Japan, but only after their unconditional surrender and complete defeat. We did not provide aid as a bargaining chip to persuade them to behave responsibly. Iran today is nowhere near that point, and there is little evidence that its leadership intends to move in that direction.

Since the 1979 revolution, the Iranian regime has consistently supported militant proxies, sponsored regional instability, and pursued policies openly hostile to both Israel and the United States. Its backing of Hezbollah is only one example. Given that record, any agreement with Tehran should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

The prospect of such a regime acquiring nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Iran's leaders have repeatedly demonstrated hostility toward Israel and the broader West, and their actions have done little to inspire confidence that they can be trusted with capabilities of that magnitude.

This MOU should be rescinded immediately. The United States should pursue a policy that recognizes the nature of the current Iranian regime rather than placing faith in promises that history suggests are unlikely to be kept.

On Iran, Iraq, and the Moral Clarity of Just War

Well, it's been a while—eight years since my last post—but the urge struck me again in the midst of learning how to create models in Blender for my new Anycubic Kobra S1 3D printer. Time has flown by—hours and days passing while working in Blender without my noticing them at all.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the current threat of Iran, in the context of how we responded to Iraq during their invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

---

In today’s geopolitical landscape, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran—a nation that has made direct threats against Israel and, at times, the United States—forces us to confront hard questions about preemptive action, national defense, and moral restraint.

Often, critics of military force invoke Christian teachings—particularly the words of Jesus—as if they require absolute pacifism. But that’s an incomplete reading. When Christ drove the money changers from the Temple, it was not a violent riot, but a targeted act of moral confrontation. He condemned corruption hidden under religious pretense, and he did so forcefully. This wasn’t about losing control—it was about demonstrating righteous anger in the face of institutional exploitation.

This example provides a useful framework for understanding Just War Theory, developed by theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, and central to Christian moral philosophy. Just War doctrine doesn’t forbid force—it regulates it. War must be:

• Waged for a just cause (not conquest),

• Declared by a legitimate authority,

• A last resort, after diplomatic efforts fail,

• Proportional in its force,

• And conducted with a realistic chance of success.

Now consider Iraq. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait—unprovoked and brutal. It was a clear violation of international law and Christian morality. The U.S.-led coalition that expelled Iraq in 1991 did so with moral legitimacy: it was defensive, restrained, and backed by international consensus. The goal was not conquest, but liberation.

The ceasefire Iraq agreed to afterward, under UN Security Council Resolution 687, required proactive disarmament and unrestricted access for inspectors. Iraq failed on both counts. It obstructed, delayed, and deceived. It did not meet the burden of proof—it evaded it.

This failure sustained the just cause for continued pressure. While the 2003 invasion of Iraq is more controversial—especially given the flawed intelligence regarding WMDs—the moral groundwork had already been laid by Saddam’s consistent noncompliance, aggression, and brutal internal repression.

Critics of the Bush administration often claimed the war was about oil or revenge, but these accusations have little grounding in fact:

• Iraq retained control of its oil fields.

• U.S. oil companies did not walk away with spoils.

• The cost of the war far outweighed any conceivable resource gain.

Had a different administration been in power, many of these same critics may have viewed the situation differently. Political alignment often colors moral outrage.

Now, to Iran. Its regime sponsors terrorism, suppresses dissent, and has made explicit threats of annihilation. If it were to acquire and ready nuclear weapons, Just War principles could apply—if the threat is credible, imminent, and unavoidable by peaceful means. Christian moral tradition doesn’t require nations to sit idle while their cities face potential destruction. But it also doesn’t permit wars of conjecture or convenience.

Regime change, contrary to some interpretations, is permissible under Just War Theory, if the regime in question is itself a threat to peace and human dignity—just as Nazi Germany was. The morality of the act lies not only in the removal, but in the responsibility taken afterward to secure peace and stability.

The lesson from Iraq is not that action was unjustified—but that action must be matched by foresight. Intelligence must be solid. Planning must be thorough. And motives must remain rooted in justice, not pride or profit.

Ultimately, Christian doctrine compels us to ask:

• Is the danger real?

• Have we exhausted other options?

• Is our response aimed at peace?

If so, then action—even preemptive action—can be morally just. The challenge lies not in knowing whether evil should be resisted. The challenge lies in resisting it wisely.

Chamberlain's Not Dead

He changed his name to James Baker and put the ol' appeasement jacket back on to see if it fit current fashions.

I'm willing to bet that Hitler reacted favorably to Chamberlain's Plan, too...

When your enemies favor a decision, it's the wrong decision.