Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that Iran really was on the path to developing a nuclear weapon. How should the world have responded — and more specifically, what should the United States have done in light of that?

Here’s the reality we have to confront:

For over four decades, Iran has stood as the world’s most consistent and aggressive state sponsor of terrorism. From Hezbollah to Hamas to Shiite militias in Iraq, Iran has exported and exploited violence, instability, and death across the globe. The United States has been one of it’s two prime targets that entire time — not in a metaphorical manner, but literally and explicitly. Iran’s leaders routinely refer to America as “the Great Satan,” and “Death to America” is not just a symbolic chant in Tehran — it’s a political slogan, a unifying rallying call, and a deeply held conviction.

Likewise, Israel — “the Little Satan” in their worldview — remains the prime target of Iranian-backed terror. On October 7, 2023, we saw the horrifying consequences of that hatred when Hamas, an Iranian proxy funded and supported by Iran, carried out a brutal massacre of Israeli civilians. That wasn’t an outlier. It was part of a long-standing Iranian objective: to see the Jewish state wiped off the face of the earth.

So let’s ask the question plainly: What happens when this regime — one that funds terror, calls for genocide, chants for America’s death, and has shown it’s willingness to engage in horrific violence against it’s enemies — gets its hands on a nuclear weapon?

Would that be acceptable to anyone?

Let’s be clear: A nuclear-armed Iran wouldn’t simply be a threat to its neighbors — it would be a global menace and a bone-chilling, cold-sweat-inducing nightmare. It would embolden terror groups under the protection of an Iranian nuclear canopy. It would set off a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile and destabilized regions on earth-the Middle East.

Imagine if you will, a nuclear armed Iran with that kind of leverage, and how it could use that  pressure to extort nations, trample internal dissent, and threaten its enemies with obliteration — while defiantly daring the world to do something about it.

We’ve seen firsthand with Hamas that the threat of annihilation — even the near certainty of defeat at the hands of a superior force — is not enough to dissuade religious zealots from pursuing their objectives. Their commitment to their cause overrides the fear of destruction.

Considering all of these factors, could the United States afford to passively react to such a threat? How catastrophic would be the cost of such indifference? 

On the other hand, one could argue that a preemptive military action may be necessary. The stakes are indeed high, and if Iran really was just days from developing a nuclear weapon, the danger it would have posed could not be overstated. A nuclear-armed Iran, driven by religious ideological extremism and a decades-long track record of sponsoring terrorism in pursuit of its goals, would shift the global balance of power at its core.

 A world with a nuclear armed Iran would place both regional allies and American interests under the constant looming threat of nuclear blackmail, perhaps even worse, to be haunted by the real possibility of catastrophic violence. Iran has not hidden ther intentions. They are crystal clear. They want death to America. They want death to Israel. That’s not rhetoric-it is their state goal. 

In view of all these considerations, is there any question whether or not the United States should take whatever actions are necessary to prevent a numclear armed Iran.