January 19, 2026
Tension in Iran has increase recently, as economic woes and reactions against the Islamic regime in power have led to protests that have been met with violence and death inflicted by the forces in power. Trump has threatened armed intervention if the deaths continue. There is every reason to oppose this. But before getting into what might happen in Iran, there is another issue that we need to address, and this issue is basic.
Why are we trying to figure out what will happen in Iran at all ? The purpose of American foreign policy is to defend America from attack. Iran poses no direct threat to America. We might prefer some outcomes of the situation there to others, but that does not justify a departure from our traditional foreign policy of non-intervention.
The great Murray Rothbard explained the reasons for non-intervention with unsurpassed clarity: "Well, the basic element of any libertarian foreign policy is to pressure the government to do nothing abroad, just to pack up shop and go home. General Smedley Butler, one of my great heroes, formerly of the Marine Corps, in the late 1930s proposed a constitutional amendment in the Woman's Home Companion. His article was a sensation for a while but of course the amendment never was adopted and has now been forgotten. But it was kind of a charming constitutional amendment-I recommend that everybody read it. In essence it says something like this: no American soldier, plane, or ship shall be sent any place outside America. In other words, complete abstinence from any kind of American military intervention and political and economic intervention."
Further, Rothbard, points out, intervention leads to the killing of innocent civilians: "In other words, since all governments aggress against their citizens through taxes, through conscription, through mass murder called war, the more governments that enter into the picture-the more the United states, Britain, or whatever rushes in to defend Waldavia-the more innocent civilians get killed, the more innocent people are forced to pay taxes, the more innocent people are conscripted. So the way to minimize aggression when you are dealing with states is to agitate and press for nobody to enter into any conflict at all-hopefully for no government to go to war with any other government-and if any government does go to war, for the third, fourth, and fifth party to stay the blazes out."
Having looked at this basic principle, as Rothbard has explained it, we are now in position to assess American policy toward Iran. One key fact needs to be kept in mind in understanding what is going on in the Middle East. Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, and the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu would like nothing better than an American attack on Iran that would overthrow its rival for power in the region and remove what he deems an existential threat to his country. Netanyahu has again and again urged America to attack Iran. Whether such an attack would best serve Israel's interests is a good question; but regardless of how you answer it, it does not justify American intervention, as I've already explained. Unfortunately, Trump is often under Netanyahu's sway, and this does not bode well for those of us who favor non-intervention. For example, in a speech to Israel's Knesset (parliament) last October, Trump said: "I want to express my gratitude to a man of exceptional courage and patriotism whose partnership did so much to make this momentous day possible. You know, who I'm talking about there's only one: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu." He then asked Netanyahu to stand up as the members of Knesset cheered for him. Trump said, "And he is not easy. I want to tell you, he's not the easiest guy to deal with. But that's what makes him great."
But will Trump in fact do anything ? Some have opined that he won't. For example, in a story that appeared in the New York Times on January 12, "President Trump is exploring options for diplomacy with Iran even as he weighs whether to attack the country to try to deter its leaders from killing more protestors, U.S. officials said on Monday. The Pentagon is presenting a wider range of strike options to Mr. Trump than previously reported. Possible targets include Iran's nuclear program, going beyond the U.S. airstrikes that battered it in June, and ballistic missile sites, a U.S. official said. But the narrower options, a cyberattack or a strike against Iran's domestic security apparatus, which is using lethal force against protesters, are more likely, the official said. Any attack is at least several days away and could prompt a vigorous retaliation from Iran, the official said. Mr. Trump is scheduled to be briefed on options on Tuesday. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said that airstrikes were 'one of the many, many options that are on the table,' but that 'diplomacy is always the first option for the president.' 'What you're hearing publicly from the Iranian regime is quite different from the messages the administration is receiving privately,' she added, 'and I think the president has an interest in exploring those messages.'
"That suggested that the private missives the administration has received were less fiery than the Iranian government's bellicose public messages about the United States since Mr. Trump's initial threats of a new attack. Mr. Trump told reporters on Sunday night that it appeared that Iran had crossed his red line, after he said this month that he would come to the aid of protesters if the Iranian government used lethal force against them. 'There seems to be some people killed who weren't supposed to be killed,' he said. 'These are violent - you can call them leaders, I don't know if they're leaders. I guess they rule with violence. But we're looking at it very seriously; the military's looking at it. And there's a couple options.' On Monday afternoon, Mr. Trump issued a new threat, saying in a social media post that the United States would impose a tariff of 25 percent on 'any and all business' done with the United States by countries that are also engaged in commerce with Iran."
Those who think Trump's threats are mere bluster are overly optimistic. He may have gone so far that he has no choice except to act. He has broken off talks with Iranian diplomats, hardly a likely step if he had serious hopes of avoiding a military strike. A story in Aljazeera on January 14 reported:"Direct contact between senior officials from the United States and Iran has broken down, according to reports, amid soaring tensions surrounding the threat of US military strikes in response to Tehran's crackdown on antigovernment protests. Communications between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US special envoy Steve Witkoff have been suspended, a senior Iranian official told the Reuters news agency on Wednesday."
Abe Greenwald, the Executive Editor of Commentary, strongly supports American intervention, and he is optimistic that it will happen:"Since massive protests broke out in Iran in December, Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened the Iranian regime with kinetic U.S. action should the mullahs order a bloodbath. He's traveled too far down that road to turn back now. And from all available evidence, he seems to understand this. Just today, Trump raised the temperature of his verbal attacks, writing on Truth Social: 'Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!! ! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!! ! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP' This reverses Trump's previous interest-tepid, though it was-in a diplomatic approach. The regime has killed thousands since he first vowed to protect Iranians, and Trump has correctly determined that talks would be futile. His telling protesters to 'save the names' of those who fire on them is also a clever and bold move. It's clever because it may give the regime's paramilitary troops some pause before following orders to shoot. And it's bold because he's offering specific deliverables to the protesters who are risking their lives. At this point, Trump doesn't only have to show the regime that he means what he says; he must also make good on his pledge to save the protesters and facilitate justice. He's obligated himself to the Iranian people. Like I said, there's no turning back.
"If you think it's not beyond Trump to leave the Iranian protesters high and dry, you may or may not have a point. But even if you do, it doesn't matter. He's warmed to the luster of American military success and isn't about to undo his image as the commander in chief who finally backs up his threats with action. Trump's posture toward Iran, in addition to his ordering the recent American capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, is a seismic change for the man who's been denouncing American intervention for years. 'We must abandon the failed policy of nation-building and regime change,' he declared a few years ago. And in June, he said of Iran 'Regime change takes chaos, and ideally, we don't want to see so much chaos.' Many in his administration still feel this way. In truth, even staunch nation-building hawks have to admit that Trump has a point about chaos. The unknowns are staggering: What follows the deposed regime ? Who maintains law and order ? How does the new reality play out in the region and beyond ? But in foreign policy, conditions are never ideal, and leaders have to choose from an array of options in which none is risk-free.
"The Trump administration seems to be somewhere in that choosing stage now, determining what kind of strike on which targets will best hamper the regime without creating a larger crisis. Then again, the president is a master of the head fake and might already have greenlit plans for an attack. In any case, an American military operation is, by my lights, imminent. And if Trump gets this right-toppling the world's largest supporter of terrorism and liberating the long-suffering Iranian people without undue fallout-he will change the trajectory of the American right, scramble the conventional wisdom of the foreign-policy elite, reverse the default bipartisan reticence over U.S. power projection-and make the world a vastly safer place. Hate him all you like, but pray that he chooses wisely.
Let's do everything we can to protest an American attack on Iran and to return to a foreign policy of non-intervention!