I want to begin with a necessary clarification: I do not support the government of Iran. I do not excuse its repression of its own people, its detention of Americans, its support for armed groups, or its threats against Israel.
Neither do I support Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, the preventive bombing of another nation, or America being drawn into another Middle Eastern war without a declaration of war by Congress.
We should be able to condemn the wrongs of Iran without giving Israel or the United States permission to do whatever they please. Christian truth does not require us to choose which government’s wrongdoing we will excuse.
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV).
After considering the chronology, the public intelligence and the results of this war, I have reached a troubling conclusion: President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu mistook the ability to destroy Iranian military installations for the ability to defeat Iran as a nation.
They damaged Iran’s air force. They struck its navy, air defenses, missile facilities, nuclear infrastructure and military leadership. But they did not destroy Iran. Five months of renewed attacks have not produced a durable peace. Every new round of bombing has produced another round of retaliation, another threat against shipping and another increase in the cost paid by ordinary people.
Did Iran Attack America First?
We have repeatedly been told that America had to act because Iran attacked American bases. That statement leaves out the order in which the major events occurred.
In January 2020, the United States killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Iran then fired missiles at American bases in Iraq.
In June 2025, the United States bombed Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran then attacked Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated attack inside Iran. Iran then fired missiles and drones at American bases throughout the Persian Gulf.
Iran has harmed Americans. Iran-supported militias have attacked American troops, and Iranian intelligence has been connected to assassination plots and other unlawful activities. But in the clearest recent cases involving direct Iranian missile attacks upon major American bases, Iran was retaliating after the United States had struck Iran or killed one of its senior officials.
That does not make the Iranian government righteous. It does mean America should not reverse the chronology and tell its citizens that Iran started an unprovoked war against us.
Was Iran an Imminent Threat?
Iran presented a genuine regional danger. It possessed missiles and drones, supported armed movements and accumulated a deeply troubling stockpile of enriched uranium. Its leaders regularly employed hostile and irresponsible rhetoric.
But public intelligence had not established that Iran possessed a nuclear weapon, had decided to manufacture one, or was preparing an immediate attack against the American homeland.
Iran did not possess an operational intercontinental missile capable of reliably striking the continental United States. North Korea does possess nuclear weapons and missiles capable of reaching American soil. North Korea has also made terrible verbal threats against America, yet we have not launched a preventive war against it.
Why the difference?
North Korea can retaliate with nuclear weapons. Iran was thought to be vulnerable enough to attack.
That reveals a dangerous lesson: nations possessing nuclear weapons receive negotiations and deterrence, while nations suspected of someday developing them may receive bombs.
Israel did not necessarily have to wait until Iranian missiles were falling upon Tel Aviv if it possessed clear evidence of an imminent attack. No nation is required to absorb the first blow when an attack is demonstrably underway.
But hostile speeches and possible future capabilities do not prove imminence. Otherwise, every nation could bomb every rival by claiming that it might someday become dangerous.
Before beginning a war, Israel and the United States should have been required to demonstrate that an Iranian attack was immediate, overwhelming and unavoidable. That evidence was not publicly presented.
Netanyahu’s Longstanding Warnings
Benjamin Netanyahu has warned since the early 1990s that Iran was only a few years—and sometimes only months—from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
More than thirty years of repeatedly revised deadlines should cause us to examine his claims carefully.
There is an important difference between saying Iran could quickly produce enough highly enriched uranium and saying Iran had decided to assemble a nuclear weapon and place it on a deliverable missile. Technical capacity is not the same as political intent. A possible future danger is not necessarily an imminent attack.
I believe Netanyahu presented Trump with an alarmist interpretation of Iranian capabilities that minimized uncertainty and exaggerated the likelihood of a short, decisive victory.
Can I prove Netanyahu knowingly supplied fabricated intelligence? No. That would require private intelligence reports, records of their meetings or testimony from officials who attended the briefings.
But the public record demonstrates that Netanyahu wanted a harder policy against Iran. He repeatedly told American officials that Iran could not be trusted. He pressed Trump to demand zero uranium enrichment, restrictions upon Iran’s missiles and an end to Iranian support for regional allies. Israel had been preparing for military action for years.
It is reasonable to conclude that Netanyahu helped persuade Trump to enter this war. It is not yet possible to prove that he knowingly lied to him.
There is a difference between a reasonable inference and an established fact. We should be careful not to commit the same error we accuse governments of committing—turning suspicion into certainty.
The War That Was Supposed to End Quickly
President Trump’s original public projection was four to five weeks—not one week. But his later statements became increasingly optimistic.
He said there was “practically nothing left to target.” When asked whether the war could be completed within a week, he said it could. He later suggested the United States might leave within two or three weeks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the conflict would last “weeks, not months.”
Those predictions were wrong.
The war has continued for five months. It has cost the United States approximately $37.5 billion. Eighteen American service members have reportedly died. Thousands of Iranians have been killed. Shipping has been disrupted, fuel prices have increased, and American supplies of important missiles and interceptors have been severely reduced.
Military planners could destroy targets on a map. They could not determine how Iran would respond, how long its people would resist or when the Iranian government would surrender.
Trump appears to have believed that the war would end whenever he decided it should end. But Iran also has a vote in when the fighting stops.
Pride is especially dangerous when joined to military power.
“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18, KJV).
Destroying Equipment Is Not Defeating a Country
America and Israel have overwhelming technological superiority. They can destroy aircraft, ships, radar installations, missile launchers, ports and government buildings.
But Iran is not merely a collection of military targets.
Iran is a nation of approximately 90 million people, possessing land, industries, engineers, resources, history and a determination to remain independent. Its government still functions. Its missile and drone capabilities have not disappeared. It retains influence over the Strait of Hormuz and relationships with armed organizations throughout the region.
Iran does not need to defeat the United States in a conventional war. It needs only to survive, continue resisting and impose enough economic and military costs to deny Trump a clear victory.
Aircraft can be replaced. Ships can be rebuilt. Missile facilities can be reconstructed. The resentment produced by bombing cities and killing families may last for generations.
Every renewed attack may weaken Iran’s military in the short term while strengthening its determination to oppose the United States in the long term.
What Will Another Attack Accomplish?
President Trump may order another attack soon, although that outcome is not certain. Negotiations involving Iran and Oman are continuing, and Saudi Arabia has urged Trump to avoid another major strike.
Still, the danger remains high.
Another American attack would destroy additional targets. But would it create peace? Would it cause Iran to trust America? Would it reopen the Strait of Hormuz permanently? Would it establish a stable Iranian government? Would it end Iranian hostility toward Israel?
More bombing cannot produce a trusted political settlement.
It could instead cause Iran to attack American bases, Gulf oil fields, power systems, ports, water facilities and commercial vessels. It could encourage Iran to rebuild its missiles, abandon international inspections and deepen its relationships with Russia, China and North Korea.
Iran may remain a thorn in Trump’s side long after the last American aircraft returns home.
The Danger to the World
I am not saying a global war is inevitable. Russia and China have so far avoided entering the conflict directly.
But Trump and Netanyahu have created conditions in which a regional war could expand through accident, pride or miscalculation.
One missile striking the wrong base, one ship being sunk with heavy casualties or one attack upon a Gulf oil facility could produce another round of escalation. Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias could widen their involvement. Cyberattacks could strike utilities, banks and transportation systems.
Every nation would claim that its latest attack was merely a response to the previous one.
That is how wars expand. Leaders seldom announce that they intend to begin a world war. They take one “limited” step after another until events escape their control.
“And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity” (James 3:6).
Words spoken in pride can place armies in motion. Once the shooting begins, speeches cannot bring the dead back to life.
Oil, Diesel and Small Businesses
The economic consequences are already appearing.
On August 6, Brent crude rose more than $3 to $82.49 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate reached $77.29. Approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural-gas trade normally passes through the Strait of Hormuz.
If negotiations fail or another attack occurs, oil prices could rise sharply. If a credible agreement reopens shipping, they could also fall. No one should state the immediate price direction with certainty.
But the underlying danger remains.
Higher oil and diesel prices affect:
farmers planting and harvesting crops;
truckers delivering food and merchandise;
small stores receiving inventory;
construction companies operating equipment;
families heating their homes;
airlines and travelers;
fertilizer, plastics and manufactured goods.
Large corporations may hedge fuel prices or negotiate long-term transportation agreements. Small businesses generally operate with thinner margins and less protection.
Presidents, prime ministers and generals make decisions in secure rooms. The bill eventually reaches the farmer, the truck driver, the small-business owner and the family standing at the grocery-store checkout.
My Assessment
I believe Netanyahu wanted a military solution to the Iranian question and helped persuade Trump that Iran could be crippled quickly. I believe the threat was presented with greater certainty than the available evidence justified.
I cannot yet prove that Netanyahu knowingly gave Trump false intelligence. I can say the promised short war did not occur.
Trump and Netanyahu succeeded in destroying much of Iran’s conventional military strength. They failed to turn that destruction into a durable peace.
Another attack may destroy more targets, but it is unlikely to eliminate Iran’s government, its national determination or its ability to impose costs throughout the region. Instead, it may widen the war, disrupt energy supplies and place the world in greater danger.
I do not defend Iran. I do not defend Netanyahu. I do not defend Trump. My concern is for truth, peace and the innocent people on every side who suffer when powerful men mistake destruction for victory.
Our enemies are still souls for whom Christ died. They are not merely targets on a military map.
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9).
America needs leaders who understand that strength is not proved by how many bombs we can drop. Sometimes strength is demonstrated by refusing to begin a war that cannot produce a just peace.
We have damaged Iran’s military, but we have not defeated Iran.
The longer pride prevents our leaders from admitting that truth, the greater the price the world may be required to pay.
No comments:
Post a Comment