The complex tapestry of Middle Eastern geopolitics has undergone a profound transformation following the events of October 7. As the United States contemplates its role in this shifting landscape, I firmly support U.S. air strikes in support of Israel. However, let me be clear: I do not advocate for American boots on the ground in this escalating conflict. The distance between the U.S. and the immediate theater of operations—7,181 miles—exemplifies the necessity of a strategic rather than a direct military involvement. This distance can be mitigated through forward positioning and a focused diplomatic approach.

Prior to October 7, Iran held a position of relative strength, benefiting from external support by nations like China, Russia, and North Korea, which helped mitigate the impacts of economic sanctions. Iran’s effective proxy forces, including Hamas and Hezbollah, posed a formidable challenge to Israel, allowing them to wage ground conflicts with significant implications for regional stability. However, the dynamics have dramatically shifted in favor of Israel since the onset of hostilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has opted for a war of attrition, a calculated strategy aiming to gradually wear down Iranian forces and their proxies while ensuring Israel’s safety and security.

In this context, it is crucial to acknowledge the strategic developments that have transpired. Iranian nuclear facilities have suffered significant damage, and their proxies have been effectively neutralized. This has rendered Iran increasingly isolated and has shifted the balance of power in the region. The fall of the House of Assad, while a complex and multifaceted event, has further exacerbated Iran’s vulnerabilities, indicating that the regional landscape is more favorable for Israel than it has been in years.

In the face of these strategic shifts, Netanyahu, his defense team, and the soldiers fighting on the front lines deserve commendation for their resolve and effectiveness. As the U.S. evaluates its own involvement, it should provide Israel with the latitude to sustain its operations without committing ground troops. Instead, we should focus on supporting Israel through advanced weaponry, intelligence sharing, and regional diplomacy aimed at isolating Iran further.

In our efforts to assist, it will be essential to ensure the continued openness of vital sea lanes and to work collaboratively with Western allies to achieve comprehensive regional stability. Equally important is the necessity to hinder the support systems that bolster Iranian aggression. This includes freezing assets that fund Hamas and Hezbollah to deter further hostilities.

Despite the potential benefits of a ceasefire, I remain skeptical about its effectiveness based on historical precedents in the region. Ceasefires have often been temporary solutions rather than durable resolutions, leading to a cycle of renewed violence. The fundamental objectives of Israel align closely with American interests; both nations seek to prevent Iran from establishing nuclear capabilities and emerging as a dominant regional power. However, the irreconcilable differences between Iran and both Israel and the United States make the pursuit of a lasting agreement fraught with challenges.

In conclusion, while the U.S. must remain a steadfast ally of Israel, our approach should prioritize support through strategic military assistance, diplomatic engagement, and regional stabilization efforts rather than direct military intervention. The complexities of the current landscape demand a nuanced response, ensuring that our actions promote long-term peace and security while enabling our allies to defend themselves effectively against existential threats.

Donald C. Bolduc

The complex tapestry of Middle Eastern geopolitics has undergone a profound transformation following the events of October 7. As the United States contemplates its role in this shifting landscape, I firmly support U.S. air strikes in support of Israel. However, let me be clear: I do not advocate for American boots on the ground in this escalating conflict. The distance between the U.S. and the immediate theater of operations—7,181 miles—exemplifies the necessity of a strategic rather than a direct military involvement. This distance can be mitigated through forward positioning and a focused diplomatic approach.

Prior to October 7, Iran held a position of relative strength, benefiting from external support by nations like China, Russia, and North Korea, which helped mitigate the impacts of economic sanctions. Iran’s effective proxy forces, including Hamas and Hezbollah, posed a formidable challenge to Israel, allowing them to wage ground conflicts with significant implications for regional stability. However, the dynamics have dramatically shifted in favor of Israel since the onset of hostilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has opted for a war of attrition, a calculated strategy aiming to gradually wear down Iranian forces and their proxies while ensuring Israel’s safety and security.

In this context, it is crucial to acknowledge the strategic developments that have transpired. Iranian nuclear facilities have suffered significant damage, and their proxies have been effectively neutralized. This has rendered Iran increasingly isolated and has shifted the balance of power in the region. The fall of the House of Assad, while a complex and multifaceted event, has further exacerbated Iran’s vulnerabilities, indicating that the regional landscape is more favorable for Israel than it has been in years.

In the face of these strategic shifts, Netanyahu, his defense team, and the soldiers fighting on the front lines deserve commendation for their resolve and effectiveness. As the U.S. evaluates its own involvement, it should provide Israel with the latitude to sustain its operations without committing ground troops. Instead, we should focus on supporting Israel through advanced weaponry, intelligence sharing, and regional diplomacy aimed at isolating Iran further.

In our efforts to assist, it will be essential to ensure the continued openness of vital sea lanes and to work collaboratively with Western allies to achieve comprehensive regional stability. Equally important is the necessity to hinder the support systems that bolster Iranian aggression. This includes freezing assets that fund Hamas and Hezbollah to deter further hostilities.

Despite the potential benefits of a ceasefire, I remain skeptical about its effectiveness based on historical precedents in the region. Ceasefires have often been temporary solutions rather than durable resolutions, leading to a cycle of renewed violence. The fundamental objectives of Israel align closely with American interests; both nations seek to prevent Iran from establishing nuclear capabilities and emerging as a dominant regional power. However, the irreconcilable differences between Iran and both Israel and the United States make the pursuit of a lasting agreement fraught with challenges.

In conclusion, while the U.S. must remain a steadfast ally of Israel, our approach should prioritize support through strategic military assistance, diplomatic engagement, and regional stabilization efforts rather than direct military intervention. The complexities of the current landscape demand a nuanced response, ensuring that our actions promote long-term peace and security while enabling our allies to defend themselves effectively against existential threats.

Donald C. Bolduc