The potential for U.S. military involvement in the ongoing Israeli-Iran conflict has created a significant divide within the Maga Union. On one side, interventionists advocate for U.S. backing of Israeli strikes, claiming it’s crucial to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile, isolationists counter that America should prioritize its own domestic issues instead of getting entangled in foreign conflicts.
In the broader conservative movement, some have made forceful statements about how to address the situation in Iran. For instance, Glenn Beck, rather than offering specific advice, raises the question of what should be done.
“An Iran with nuclear arms is problematic, but I believe Israel should handle it. I don’t want to get involved,” he remarks.
Sean Davis, the CEO of the Federalist, shares a nuanced viewpoint as well. In a recent conversation on the “Glenn Beck Program,” he and Glenn discussed various courses of action former President Trump might pursue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6-hvmmysyo
Davis expresses a common sentiment: “We don’t want adversaries having weapons that could threaten us and our allies.” Yet, he acknowledges that in this world, having nuclear weapons might be the only means for a regime to safeguard its power. He refers to former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who gave up his nuclear ambitions but was later overthrown and killed by forces under leaders like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, presenting a troubling precedent.
In light of that history, Davis admits he doesn’t have any solid solutions for keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran’s reach. Even if the U.S. or Israel were to bombard Iran’s Fordow enrichment facility, it would only temporarily disable the enriched uranium process. “What remains are the motivations to build nuclear arms,” he warns.
Some propose a different route: regime change. The idea is that a democratic uprising, spearheaded by organized resistance, could potentially remove Iran’s current theocratic leadership.
However, Davis remains skeptical, stating, “I don’t think a governmental overhaul is a brilliant plan. We’ve seen too many disasters arise from such actions,” likening it to unleashing “Pandora’s Box.” For the moment, all he knows to ask is: “What of nuclear weapons?”
Encouraging Iran to abandon its nuclear intents through “economic incentives” seems unfeasible as well. “Iran has oil—perhaps the most valuable resource on earth,” Davis points out.
Glenn agrees with Davis wholeheartedly on this approach, yet he makes a valid observation. The U.S. is the only nation with “bunker busters” capable of destroying Iran’s well-protected Fordow facility. However, using that bomb “would require it to be deployed from our aircraft,” which could directly involve the U.S. in the conflict. There’s also the suggestion of “selling” the bomb to Israel, letting them carry out the strike, but that leaves the U.S. indirectly implicated.
Regardless of what happens, if the U.S. or Israel strikes, it’s uncertain how Iran will respond. They might choose to back down or escalate the situation further.
Glenn echoes Davis’s uncertainty regarding viable options. He reflects on the complexities that remind him of past administrations’ challenges.
To catch more of their discussion, check out the clip above.
