Let’s leave aside the reflexive “If Donald Trump does it, then it must be the wrong thing,” response of many people.[1]  What are real arguments against attacking Iran?   

            War with Iran might be smacking a hornet’s nest with a stick.  Iran isn’t much of a threat to the United States at the moment.  Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons; Iran’s vast stock of ballistic missiles only have the range to hit our regional allies or the US Navy in the northern Indian Ocean, not the heartland.  Iran made no significant response to the Israeli and American killing of its head terrorist, General Qassim Suleimani (2020), or to their attacks on nuclear sites in Summer 2026.  Nor did they do anything to support the Hamas fight inside Gaza or Hezbollah after the Israeli “pager” attack. 

These were limited attacks.  Iran’s rulers could see a huge attack, when combined with the mass protest demonstrations of recent months, and calls for regime change, as a mortal threat to the Islamic revolution.  This combination of threats could tip the regime over the edge into a wide ranging counter-attack.  This might combine attacks on American bases in the Middle East (and on the friendly governments that host those bases), a new “tanker war” to close the Straits of Hormuz oil-shipping lanes, and terrorism abroad.[2]  In short, we should be afraid, very afraid. 

            “Regime change” is going to be hard to do and the effort would have an uncertain  outcome.  On the one hand, airpower has been oversold from when it was just a twinkle in the eyes of Billy Mitchell and Arthur “Bomber” Harris.  The Second World War offers abundant proof that strategic bombing alone, whether of the “carpet” or “precision” variant, isn’t enough to win a war against a determined opponent.  Successfully attacking key Iranian nuclear sites in Summer 2025 didn’t budge the regime.  Do we want to commit ground forces to finish the job? 

On the other hand, Iraq (2003), Egypt (2011-2012), Libya (2011).  The United States intervened in all these places to change the regime.  Each adventure ended badly.  Foreign countries are just as complex societies as our own.  They are just as full of factions, conflicts, ambitions, and hatreds.  Dictatorships tend to repress these forces, while—alas—democracy allows them full play.  What if we pitch Iran from tyranny into civil war? 

            The Iranians have said that they will agree to never pursue nuclear weapons.  Why not take the win?  Declare victory and negotiate a mutually satisfactory form of words.  That form of words would include an Iranian commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons; to close its nuclear weapons sites (Fordo, Isfahan, Natanz); and to commit to not enrich uranium beyond a low level; all of it under close international supervision.[3]   

We should not run grave risks for very uncertain outcomes. 

This isn’t to say that we should do nothing.  The regime is unpopular with many Iranians.  The US can covertly support selected dissidents in hopes that Iran will have a better revolution. 

---

[1] It’s an understandable response, but not entirely correct. 

[2] The threat is not to be sneezed at.  It has been credibly alleged that Iran inspired the bombing of the US Marine and French Foreign Legion barracks in Beirut, the US Air Force residence in Saudi Arabia, and Jewish sites in Argentina.  See: Anthony H. Cordesman, The Iran-Iraq war and Western Security, 1984–1987: Strategic Implications and Policy Options (1987); James Risen and Jane Perlez, “Terrorism and Iran: Washington’s Policy Performs a Delicate Balancing Act,” The New York Times, 23 June 2001; and Daniel Politi, “Argentine Court Says Iran Was Behind Israeli Embassy and Jewish Center Attacks,” The New York Times, 12 April 2024. 

[3] See: Nicholas Kristof, “The Folly of Attacking Iran,” NYT, 1 March 2026.