The Only Way America Can Win Against Iran: A Strategy for Total Victory

Posted on August 8, 2026 by Sword of Apollo

My personal commentary on the 2026 US and Israeli war with Iran, written while the conflict is still underway. The philosophy of Objectivism, itself, has no position on this particular war, or military strategies.

As I write this, the United States of America, with the most powerful military in the history of the world, stands a very good chance of losing this current war with Iran, started in 2026. The US military has done far more damage to Iran’s government structure, military personnel and military equipment than Iran has done to the US’s.

Yet the level of damage done to the enemy military or country is not what determines who wins and who loses a war. It is the side that gives up its stated objectives and leaves the fight, in the face of determined opposition by the other side, that loses the war.

At the start of the war, Donald Trump stated that he wanted to 1) end the ballistic missile threat of Iran, 2) end Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and 3) end Iran’s support for proxies that threaten US interests and personnel. More recently, he has also stated 4) that the Strait of Hormuz needs to be reopened without any Iranian tolls or fees.

So, if the US ends the war and blockade without a substantial nuclear deal or the seizure of all of Iran’s enriched uranium, without securing Iranian compliance on ballistic missiles, while the Houthi proxies of Iran are threatening shipping in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, and in the process, leaves Iran with the ability to control traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and charge tolls on ships, then this counts as a complete US capitulation and loss of the war.

Unfortunately, Trump’s handling of the Iran war has led to a heavy buildup of pressure on him to stop the war like this, without achieving any of his stated objectives, and while handing at least partial control of the Strait of Hormuz over to Iran. (This control violates all international norms of the seas and amounts to a special privilege granted to the Islamic Republic of Iran that no other nation gets.)

This Iran war has led to major disruptions in the supply of oil and other goods from the Persian Gulf, generating serious shortages and price spikes. Also, as Donald Trump has justified and pursued it, this war is not very popular in America. A July 2026 poll by the University of Maryland found that 52% of Americans think that the US should end the Iran war now, and only 21% thought the US should use military force as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. (The other 79% either favored diplomacy, or didn’t know what they thought.)

But, Donald Trump’s particular justifications and methods of fighting the Iran war aside, I think that a United States war against the Islamic Republic of Iran is completely justified. In fact, I would say that it is among the most justified military actions in the history of the United States: far more so than Vietnam, Korea, World War I, and Iraq, and perhaps even surpassing World War II and the War of 1812.

Why is such a war against Iran so justified? Because of Iran’s very long history of attacking the US by proxy, every chance it gets, and because of the nature of the Islamic Republic regime.

Summary

To win a war means to make the other side capitulate and allow you to achieve your objectives, without further forcible opposition.
The US war in Iran is unpopular in America and there is mounting pressure on Donald Trump to stop.
America is in danger of losing the Iran war of 2026 because, even though it has inflicted massively disproportionate damage to Iran’s government and military, it looks to be the side that will back down from the fight, without achieving its objectives.
A war against Iran is fully justified by Iran’s long history of proxy and direct attacks on US facilities and personnel, resulting in hundreds of American deaths. The Islamic Republic is basically the world leader of Islamist terrorism against America, Israel and the West.
So the war against Iran should be continued and won. How can this be accomplished? Let’s look at what we know:
The Islamic regime of Iran are all religious zealots who will never make a good-faith deal and will never give up their attempts to establish totalitarian Islam as the ruling ideology of the world. The supremacy of Islam and the duty to spread it abroad by revolutionary struggle is in the Islamic Republic’s constitution. These fanatics have shown they don’t care about oil or the Iranian economy, unless they can use them to help the triumph of Shia Islam in the world. The only way to end the ballistic missile and nuclear threat from the Iranian regime is to overthrow that regime.
But the Iranian people are different than the Islamic regime, and the large majority, (about 90%) do not support the regime. Their mass protests have been brutally put down by the Islamic regime in a huge massacre. They want freedom, but they need to be trained, armed and organized to be effective in fighting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The Iranian people are different than the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not tribal, like most Iraqis and Afghanis, and they are much more educated and individualistic than Afghanis. Iranians have already experienced something close to a modern, Western society and lifestyle. Unlike these other two national populations, most Iranians are ready for a transition to a modern, unified, stable, republican government, with democratic elections.
Given these facts about the Iranian regime and the Iranian people, I propose a US strategy that frees the Iranian people and effectively leverages them against the regime:
The US should employ a few Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) to establish a heavily defended base on the southern coast of Iran, in a rural area, (after preparing the area with airstrikes against any IRGC nearby.)
With the base established, the US would put out the message to a nearby town that those who wish to be free of the Islamic republic, and do their part to fight it, should come to the base, bringing food, water, and any weapons they have. After depositing their weapons at the entrance to the outer perimeter and undergoing a long-distance strip-search, they would be allowed into the base to take an oath against the regime, be trained and organized. On leaving the base, they would be armed for the fight with the IRGC.
When the people of the first town are nearly finished with their training, the call would go out to the next town, and the process would repeat. The process would work its way through nearby towns and cities, until you have an army capable of building itself, taking IRGC weapons, and gradually eliminating the IRGC throughout the entire country.
This would all be done, initially, under heavy air defense and under air cover by the US Navy and Air Force.
Donald Trump’s negotiations with–and his moody, whiplashing pronouncements on–the Iranian regime have given them hope that they can either get him to compromise away his objectives, or outlast his resolve to defeat them.
What you need to win a war is a constant message to the enemy: “You will capitulate, or you will be destroyed; there is no hope of victory for you.” Trump’s negotiations and capricious statements in this war have completely undercut and subverted that message to the Iranian regime. It’s time they heard it loud and clear.

End of Summary

Continue reading →

How Economic Regulation Causes Cronyism and “Regulatory Capture”

Posted on December 17, 2016 by Sword of Apollo

I’m very much pro-capitalism. However, I agree with Bernie Sanders and many of his allies on the American Left about something. I agree that cronyism is a serious problem in the US. Businesses should not get special favors and money from the government that they didn’t earn. But where Bernie and friends seem to think the solution to cronyism is more government regulation and control, I think cronyism is a symptom of too much government regulation and control. I think the solution is purer capitalism, which means freer markets. In this essay, I’ll explain why I think this, and how I think government regulation of the economy causes cronyism, lobbying and “regulatory capture.”

Let’s start by observing a correlation: Cronyism and lobbying tend to show up in the most regulated industries, not the least regulated. Finance in the US is heavily regulated–by no fewer than eight federal agencies–and the government protects and bails out big banks. Pharmaceuticals are controlled by the FDA, and the FDA often keeps smaller competitors out of the market. Whether a sports team can build a stadium is practically controlled by the city government, and team owners typically get a bonanza of special deals and subsidies from the city. Cronyism was virtually non-existent in the less-regulated tech sector, until the government pursued the anti-trust case against Microsoft. Now, Microsoft has a division in Washington D.C. for lobbying purposes. (Apple and Google now both lobby, too.) In general, retail stores are not very heavily regulated, and there’s not a significant issue of cronyism in that field.

Continue reading →

What I’d Like to See Gary Johnson Say to Bernie Sanders Supporters

Posted on October 7, 2016 by Sword of Apollo

What I want to see presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, say to those who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary:

So Bernie Sanders and I mostly agree on what are generally called “social issues.” We both support gay marriage, drug decriminalization, the right of a woman to choose abortion, etc. Where we differ is in what is generally called “economic policy.” Bernie wants more taxes and regulations on “millionaires and billionaires.” He says that large gaps in income and wealth are “wrong, immoral, and not what America should be about.” But why? When someone makes more money than I do, and he does it honestly, without stealing and without government favoritism, I say “Good for him” or “Good for her,” not “How dare that person be rich; I’m gonna cut that bastard down to size with taxes and regulations.”

But high inequality is inherently bad economically, you say? It contributes to stagnation? There’s no good reason to think so.

Studies that supposedly show that higher inequality reduces growth generally find tentative results that are very susceptible to the authors’ biases. They generally tend to ignore the fact that there are different kinds of economic inequality that there is strong theoretical reason to believe have very different impacts on growth. For example, there is the sort of inequality that results from government favoritism, as in the Saudi royal family and the Russian “oligarchs,” and the sort of inequality that results from free and voluntary trade, as in the case of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

When we look at the big picture, we find that many countries that have high wealth inequality also have high GDP per capita and high economic growth. If we look at West Germany and East Germany in the 1970s and ’80s, we see two very culturally and geographically similar societies. West Germany was a relatively free market with relatively high wealth inequality, while East Germany was a society where the government tried to enforce wealth equality. West Germany was clearly better off than East Germany, economically.

Continue reading →

Socialism is Not “Worker Control of the Means of Production”

Posted on July 5, 2016 by Sword of Apollo

"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror." --Karl Marx

Karl Marx – The man who has influenced the thinking of socialists around the world more than any other.

I often hear socialists say that socialism is “democratic worker control of the means of production.” But is it really? In this essay, I’ll explain why it’s not, and why the issue of socialism vs. capitalism is a moral and political issue of property rights, rather than an economic issue of “modes of production.” Obfuscation and confusion aside, this ultimately holds true whether the socialism under consideration is classic Marxist socialism, “libertarian socialism,” or whatever other sort of socialism you want to name.

In a mostly capitalist country, like the US in the 1880s, there are many different kinds of business organizations: There are for-profit corporations, non-profit corporations, sole proprietorships, partnerships, credit unions, retailers’ cooperatives, consumers’ cooperatives, and employee cooperatives. That’s right, worker cooperatives can and do exist in what Karl Marx would call a “capitalist society.” Examples of consumers’ cooperatives include REI in the US and “The Co-op” in the UK. Examples of employee cooperatives include the Cheese Board Collective in Berkeley, California, the Rainbow Grocery Cooperative in San Francisco, and the Citybikes Workers’ Cooperative in Portland, Oregon. These latter three are companies where employees own and control the means of production in their company, democratically.

If “socialism” meant “worker control of the means of production,” as in a co-op, then people are perfectly free to have “socialist companies” under a laissez-faire capitalist government that protects private property rights.

Continue reading →

Bernie Sanders and the Injustice of “Democratic Socialism”

Posted on June 14, 2016 by Sword of Apollo

This essay is Part 3 of a three-part series on socialism:

Bernie Sanders

In the first essay of this series, I took socialism, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, and showed why it is immoral (unjust) in theory and in its “purest” practice. Then, in the second essay, I explained why, in the real world, attempts to approach pure socialism have always resulted in oppressive, dictatorial governments with high degrees of corruption. (Again, as explained in the second essay, worker-owned cooperatives cannot generally be called “socialism.”)

In this essay, I’ll discuss partial socialism, as it presents itself in the Scandinavian countries of Europe, (like Sweden,) in the US, and in the 2016 presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders. Some people will say that pure socialism is impractical and/or inconsistent with human nature, but still think that there should be a “balanced” mixture of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism, they think, mustn’t be “unfettered,” but rather must be reined in by government regulation and welfare programs. This they will often call “democratic socialism” or “social democracy.”

I’ll explain why partial socialism and welfare programs are unjust and destructive of people’s well-being.

Socialism Lite

Once again, from the Oxford English Dictionary, socialism is defined as:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

But “the community as a whole” is not a single entity, and does not think with a single mind. There is not even a single, definite organization encompassing “the community as a whole.” So it can’t really do anything or own anything. In socialist practice, “the community as a whole” is taken to be represented by government. (And as I explained in Part 2, the logic of socialism means that this government doesn’t even have to be “democratic,” in the way that term is often understood. At least in the Marxist version, it can also be represented by an informal government, consisting of organized gangs of proletarian thugs with guns–this is Marx’s “revolutionary terror.”)

Continue reading →

Why Socialism is Morally Wrong: The Basis of Property Rights

Posted on May 1, 2016 by Sword of Apollo

This essay is Part 1 of a three-part series on socialism:

Socialism-raised fists-black on red background Socialism has become more popular in the US recently, at least as a term people use for their political beliefs. Bernie Sanders and many of his young followers claim to be socialists. But what is socialism, really, and is it a moral system or an immoral one? Is it practical or impractical?

In this essay, I will give the definition of socialism as dictionaries and its most committed advocates understand it. Then I will take socialism in its “purest,” most “noble,” most economically reasonable form–which many socialists claim has not been refuted by history–and show you why it is both immoral and impractical.

The Common Definition of Socialism

The Oxford English Dictionary defines socialism as:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If we are talking about full socialism, as its serious advocates mean it, the “regulated” here is redundant and should be taken to mean complete regulation and control, which is effectively the same as ownership. In a fully socialist society, “capitalists”–those who own “the means of production, distribution and exchange,” like factories and grocery stores–are abolished. Everyone in the society is a “laborer” or “worker,” in the broad sense of “someone who works for wages,” (what I’ll sometimes call a “wage-worker,” as opposed to someone who earns profits from private ownership.)

The “community as a whole” exercises control through some form of governmental institution. In different socialist theories, this may take the form of anything from local direct democracies, to national or worldwide governments of central planners, allegedly representing the collective will of the “working class” (proletariat.)

(In light of this, I will say up front that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist in the full sense of the term: he doesn’t advocate the outright abolition of capitalists. I will have more to say about what he actually is, in Part 3 of this series.)

Continue reading →

New Book Out Today! Equal is Unfair, by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Posted on March 29, 2016 by Sword of Apollo

It seems like virtually everyone on the political left is talking about income inequality, or inequality of wealth. From Paul Krugman, to Rachel Maddow, to Elizabeth Warren, to Bernie Sanders, to President Obama. They all condemn high levels of income or wealth inequality as unfair and economically destructive.

But what if they’re wrong? What if high income inequality is a good thing for prosperity? What if it’s necessary for the greatest improvement in the lives of the poor? What if the campaign against inequality is actually immoral?

There’s an important new book on income inequality that was just released today. It’s called, Equal is Unfair: America’s Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality. Here are some videos from the authors on the issue of income inequality. The first chapter of the book is also linked below.

The videos:

–

Bernie Sanders and the Inequality Gimmick:

–

Who Cares About Inequality?

Continue reading →

“Equal is Unfair – The Inequality Advantage”: A Talk by Yaron Brook

Posted on December 13, 2015 by Sword of Apollo

Should economic inequality (inequality of wealth) in a capitalist system concern you? Is inequality of opportunity a problem that needs a governmental solution? Is it fair or just that some people make more money than others, or inherit wealth from their parents?

I found this video so powerful that I had to share it in its own post on my blog. In this video, Yaron Brook is both reasonable and passionate when he speaks about one of the central moral and political issues of our time: inequality. He also answers questions from his audience at the University of Exeter after the talk.

Stick around for the Q&A for Dr. Brook’s view of what legitimate equality is. (Hint: It’s the same type of equality meant by the Founding Fathers of the United States.)

Also, look for Yaron Brook’s upcoming book, Equal Is Unfair: America’s Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality, co-authored with Don Watkins.

—–

On Fairness and Justice: Their Meanings, Scopes, and How They Are Not the Same

Wealth is Created by Action Based on Rational Thought

The Role of Profits in Free-Market Capitalism, and Why High Profits are Good for a Company’s Workers

How Business Executives and Investors Create Wealth and Earn Large Incomes

The Role of Profits in Free-Market Capitalism, and Why High Profits are Good for a Company’s Workers

Posted on November 22, 2015 by Sword of Apollo

Whether people like it or not, it is a fact that the production of valuable things requires more than physical labor. (I’m looking at you, Karl Marx, with your Labor Theory of Value and “profit as exploitation.”) This is especially true when it comes to industrial-scale mass production. To successfully deliver products at a reasonable price and quality, a company must be organized in certain ways that are effective; there must be communication and coordination between the various departments; there must be management to make sure things keep running smoothly together and that timetables are kept; there must be wealth invested for buildings, machinery and raw materials in the right amounts; any machinery and facilities must be continually maintained; there must be management of sales and distribution of the product; etc.

A collection of factory workers without power tools, without specific roles and without management direction will produce very little and very inefficiently. In any line of business, there is a tremendous amount of strategy, business planning, technical planning, management, and industry knowledge that goes into making a company productive and successful.

As I discussed in my essay, “How Business Executives and Investors Create Wealth and Earn Large Incomes,” a company’s chief executive officer (CEO) carries tremendous responsibility: he is crucial in making large-scale decisions for the company, implementing and coordinating major changes, planning long-term for the future market and technology the company will face, formulating and holding onto a large-scale vision of where the company should go, etc.

Continue reading →

Why Fairness Does Not Mean Justice: Some Further Argument

Posted on October 25, 2015 by Sword of Apollo

Over three years ago, I wrote an essay discussing the proper meaning of the concepts of “fairness” and “justice,” as I understand them: On Fairness and Justice: Their Meanings, Scopes, and How They Are Not the Same.

My major points in this essay were 1) that the concept of “fairness” presupposes that one is talking about a zero-sum game: a situation devised by a purposeful intelligence to measure people’s attributes, where one person winning requires that another person loses; 2) that life in society and in general does not meet this criterion for “fairness” to apply: people “win” by creating valuable things, and do not need to deprive others of these things to have them; and 3) that societal justice requires the protection of individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property, and that it consists in each individual generally being rewarded in proportion to his mental effort and virtuous actions.

In this previous essay, I explained my view of “fairness” and illustrated it with examples, but I did not argue extensively for my conception of that term–why my conception of fairness is correct. I have been prompted to provide further argument by the upcoming release of a book called “Equal is Unfair,” and one of the co-authors’ (Yaron Brook’s) reply to me regarding “fairness”:

@Sword_of_Apollo I don't agree. Fairness means justice — getting what one deserves. But we discuss all this in book.

— Yaron Brook (@yaronbrook) October 17, 2015

I have great respect for Dr. Brook, and am looking forward to his latest book, but I think he’s wrong here: fairness does not mean justice. And the purpose of this post is to argue my case. I encourage those who have not read my previous essay to read it before proceeding on in this one, since it will help set the context for my arguments: On Fairness and Justice.

One of the first things that should spring to mind when someone mentions the word, “fairness,” is the realm of sports and competitions: Is it fair when women are put in competition with men? Is it fair when one team learns the other team’s plays through spying? Is a race where one athlete has artificial legs fair? Is a weightlifting competition fair when steroids are secretly taken, or openly allowed? Is it fair when the Patriots let air out of the football?

Does justice have the same intimate connection with such competitive sports? Is that one of the first things you think of when you think of justice? Probably not. This is our first clue that fairness and justice are different concepts: they seem to be associated with different realms of life.

Continue reading →