A recent letter published in the Mirror letter stated that U.S. engagement with Iran, while unpopular, is necessary. The letter writer offers the American Revolution and WWII as keen examples of this phenomenon: namely, that American engagement in these conflicts, while necessary, was not initially popular.

But these examples are incomparable to the current situation in the Middle East. The American Revolution’s historical origins differ significantly from the U.S.-Iran conflict. The Revolution emerged from a disagreement among colonists over whether British rule or self-rule could best uphold their rights as Englishmen.

Perhaps WWII is a better example, for after all, it was a conflict primarily fought on non-U.S. soil, and it did not initially have a majority of American public support. But the U.S. not only entered the war after a surprise attack on a U.S. military base by the Japanese Empire, but with a 388 to 1 House vote in favor of war, with massive public support. The U.S., on the other hand, has just preemptively attacked Iran and did so without public support or Congressional authorization. Maybe the U.S.-Iran War is necessary, but the current U.S. administration has done very little to outline what the plan or objective is of this war. Indeed, the lack of a concrete idea of the conflict’s plan and outcomes, combined with the conflict’s impacts on millions of innocent civilians in the Middle East, is precisely why I do not support U.S. action in Iran.

David Trumpbour

Duncansville