This is the first public commentary by a libertarian on this subject that comes close to being worthy of the nuances involved.
Most of what I've read from my fellow libertarians just repeats dogmatic talking points and uses cherry-picked evidence to support them.
I say this as a person who wrote most of an entire website criticizing Gulf War 2 before it happened, and nearly a dozen articles criticizing past U.S. interventions. I understand the libertarian case against foreign intervention quite well, and mostly agree with it. But the Iran situation has unique features that most libertarians are simply ignoring in favor of shop-worn articles of faith and tired old sound bites from yesteryear.
Thank you for giving us something that better matches the need, Max.
You nailed it. I despise politicians who treat war like a video game and the soldiers and civilians like cartoon pawns.
I am not naive about the bad actors in the world, who have no reason to negotiate except through bribery, blackmail, or force. And, then there is our country's hypocrisy and opportunism: Our support for totalitarianism when it suits our political (military bases in other countries) and economic goals (other people's natural resources, such as oil). Which means, at this point in history, that even the best of diplomats have a quagmire of past bad decisions to wade through.
And we will never know the full story of what is happening or why.
I'm wondering if anyone has attempted a cost/benefit analysis of all of America's wars since 1960. My jaded hunch would be the vast majority would come out with cost far exceeding benefit. And from this one could conclude the war power should be detached from the executive branch and reattached to the legislative branch, regardless of how dysfunctional the legislative branch.
I’ve been wrestling with the same tension you’re naming here. I hold a principled non-interventionist stance, but the collapse of the Iranian regime forces a narrower category: moments when moral solidarity with a liberated people and non-intervention pull in opposite directions.
What your piece captures is that the moral facts and the institutional facts refuse to align. The humanitarian impulse points one way; the U.S. government’s record points another; and the strategic incentives fracture in every direction. It’s one of those cases where any clean answer feels like it leaves something essential out.
After working through the structure, I ended up where your AI did: the case against escalation still outweighs the benefits. But the deeper question remains: how do we understand situations where a regime’s evil is clear, and the people’s desire for freedom is clear, but the only available mechanisms for “help” are institutionally incapable of producing a just or stable outcome?
That seems to be the category your essay is circling, and it’s the one I’ve had to formalize for myself.
If you're referring to the Lyndon LaRouche people, I have been skeptical of him and his ideas in the past, but I will give it a try and keep an open mind.
Until recently, I was following a gentleman whose posts made a lot of sense to me. He ultimately revealed himself as someone I don't care for at all. Life can be funny that way.
Boy, you're right there. The older I get, the more I feel the need to find the value in someone's position, even if I can't swallow the whole enchilada.
This is the first public commentary by a libertarian on this subject that comes close to being worthy of the nuances involved.
Most of what I've read from my fellow libertarians just repeats dogmatic talking points and uses cherry-picked evidence to support them.
I say this as a person who wrote most of an entire website criticizing Gulf War 2 before it happened, and nearly a dozen articles criticizing past U.S. interventions. I understand the libertarian case against foreign intervention quite well, and mostly agree with it. But the Iran situation has unique features that most libertarians are simply ignoring in favor of shop-worn articles of faith and tired old sound bites from yesteryear.
Thank you for giving us something that better matches the need, Max.
You nailed it. I despise politicians who treat war like a video game and the soldiers and civilians like cartoon pawns.
I am not naive about the bad actors in the world, who have no reason to negotiate except through bribery, blackmail, or force. And, then there is our country's hypocrisy and opportunism: Our support for totalitarianism when it suits our political (military bases in other countries) and economic goals (other people's natural resources, such as oil). Which means, at this point in history, that even the best of diplomats have a quagmire of past bad decisions to wade through.
And we will never know the full story of what is happening or why.
I'm wondering if anyone has attempted a cost/benefit analysis of all of America's wars since 1960. My jaded hunch would be the vast majority would come out with cost far exceeding benefit. And from this one could conclude the war power should be detached from the executive branch and reattached to the legislative branch, regardless of how dysfunctional the legislative branch.
I’ve been wrestling with the same tension you’re naming here. I hold a principled non-interventionist stance, but the collapse of the Iranian regime forces a narrower category: moments when moral solidarity with a liberated people and non-intervention pull in opposite directions.
What your piece captures is that the moral facts and the institutional facts refuse to align. The humanitarian impulse points one way; the U.S. government’s record points another; and the strategic incentives fracture in every direction. It’s one of those cases where any clean answer feels like it leaves something essential out.
After working through the structure, I ended up where your AI did: the case against escalation still outweighs the benefits. But the deeper question remains: how do we understand situations where a regime’s evil is clear, and the people’s desire for freedom is clear, but the only available mechanisms for “help” are institutionally incapable of producing a just or stable outcome?
That seems to be the category your essay is circling, and it’s the one I’ve had to formalize for myself.
Concisely and beautifully said.
Have you visited the Promethean channel on YouTube? I may be deceived, but it feels like the essayists there know a few things
If you're referring to the Lyndon LaRouche people, I have been skeptical of him and his ideas in the past, but I will give it a try and keep an open mind.
Until recently, I was following a gentleman whose posts made a lot of sense to me. He ultimately revealed himself as someone I don't care for at all. Life can be funny that way.
Boy, you're right there. The older I get, the more I feel the need to find the value in someone's position, even if I can't swallow the whole enchilada.
I've been to war and I've seen what it looks like. And now I'm anti-war. Sherman was correct.
I dislike the Iranian regime, but I can't find any nuance that makes US military adventurism a worthwhile manner of engagement with that regime.