NI StaffAmerica and the MAGA movement have erupted in debate over the proper U.S. policy toward Israel’s recent strikes on Iran. In a recent episode of Ami’s House, Yaron Brook and Elan Journo unpack the main arguments surrounding the issue and offer their distinctive perspective.
Brook and Journo contend that determining the correct policy towards Iran requires adopting a rational, self-interested moral approach. They criticize both anti-war “isolationists” and pro-war neoconservatives for failing to do so, arguing that the morality of altruism has undermined past American military actions.
According to Brook and Journo, America’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan — which “isolationists” cite as cautionary tales — were not caused by intervention itself. They were caused by selfless goals like nation-building and restrictive rules of engagement that led to avoidable American casualties. These wars lacked a clear, self-interested objective.
But war with Iran, they contend, can be morally justified because Iran is an objective threat and eliminating it serves America’s interests. Rejecting the neoconservative aim of spreading democracy, they argue that regime change is proper because Iran is a hostile power that has attacked Americans, inspired terrorism, and contributed indirectly to the 9/11 attacks. Brook and Journo call for overwhelming military force aimed at decisively eliminating the threat, with minimal American casualties.
Other topics discussed include:
- The differences between the Objectivist and libertarian views about the issue;
- America’s failed response to 9/11;
- The sophistication of Israel’s recent strikes on Iran;
- Trump’s Iran policy.
To hear the full analysis by Brook and Journo, watch the full interview.
Ibis Slade
