The United States has just gotten involved in the conflict in Iran, striking several key nuclear sites. Among these was the famous Fordow site located deep underground, necessitating the use of the B2 Spirit bombers, which are uniquely suited to delivering the famous “MOP” bunker buster, capable of burrowing deep underground to deliver its business.

There’s no question that this strike made the world a far safer place, as it deprived the Ayatollah of the nuclear munitions that he undoubtedly would have eagerly deployed against nations such as the United States and Israel, both of whom he frequently wished death upon.

However, this move faced pushback from the more pacifistic elements of the MAGA movement, who stated that they voted for Trump believing that he would have been more hesitant to get the US involved in foreign conflicts. While it wouldn’t surprise me if an examination of their digital footprints were to reveal that they are actually Pakistanis who don’t live in the US, assuming that they do, an examination of their convictions reveals that they don’t have a strong understanding of how the world works, nor have they given much thought to the philosophical bases behind their convictions.

On the bright side, they seem to change their viewpoints somewhat when you attempt to reason with them, which makes them much better than most of the people who I take issue with.

It also gives me an opportunity to make a point that I’ve wanted to make for a long time: That freedom of speech does not protect all forms of speech.

I say this as a strongly free speech kinda guy. You want to make a video game where the protagonist commits outrageous crimes? That’s protected speech. Want to draw comics of fictional characters committing graphic acts of violence? Also protected speech. It might not be according to my taste, but it’s free expression.

Those on the right tend more towards free speech absolutism. It seems largely to come from the idea that having free speech means saying whatever you want, which is pretty much a reductive perspective that they tell elementary school students because there’s less expectation that they’d understand the more nuanced aspects of the matter.

Is defamation a form of protected free expression? No, it is not. It can damage a person’s reputation and cost them opportunities. If it can be proven that defamation has caused damages, the person who committed it can be taken to civil court.

Let’s get closer to the heart of the matter. Are threats of harm a protected form of expression? No, they are not. A person’s freedom ceases to be their freedom when it interferes with the freedom of another, including the right of a person to be secure in their person or their property.

To illustrate, here’s a story: Suppose you lived in a neighborhood, and you’ve made a few friends there. However, there’s one person there who doesn’t like you. Let’s call him “Loose Cannon”.

One day, Loose comes up to you and tells you that he wishes you dead. He doesn’t just say it to you, he also says it to your neighbors, particularly the ones who you’re friends with. But, no one in the neighborhood thinks much of this because Loose is only 5 feet tall, has a poorly-maintained beard, and bows, kneels, and scrapes to some rock idol in the middle of a desert five times a day. There’s no expectation that Loose can do much of anything.

And it’s not a one-time thing, either. Loose keeps wishing you and your friends dead, day after day for years on end. And you and your friends keep brushing him off. He seems sincere in his hatred, but his words don’t seem threatening coming from him.

But then, matters escalate significantly. Eventually, Loose comes up to you and tells you that he’s going to buy a rifle, and use it to shoot you and your family and your friends. Quite alarming. He then runs off.

Minutes later, one of your friends calls you and tells you that Loose just said the same thing to him, and that Loose had just gotten into his car to go to the gun shop. Highly actionable information.

Just then, you look out the window, and you see Loose driving down the street. Not only that, one of your friends had just shot out his tires. Seeing an opportunity, you and your friend immediately subdue Loose, performing a citizen’s arrest.

While a citizen’s arrest is legally risky, the police do arrive and take Loose away, leaving the neighborhood much safer thanks to you and your friend’s efforts. A job well done, to be sure.

But then, one of your neighbors starts yelling at you. Let’s call him “Limpy Smallpart”. Limpy starts yelling at you and your friend for not resolving the matter more peacefully. He points out that Loose had some grievance that should have been heard, and that if he did have a rifle, he would have been in a better position to negotiate.

You probably wouldn’t take Limpy seriously. Because of course you wouldn’t. You and your neighbor return to your respective homes, all while Limpy shouts himself silly. Then Limpy, being upset that no one is paying attention to him, turns to social media and makes memes about how you suck off your neighbor, to an audience of exactly one who believes in conspiracy theories too stupid to make into movies.

While the legality of the actions of the characters in this story can be debated, there’s no question that you and your neighbor would have acted morally in recognizing a threat of impending harm and responding by mitigating that threat.

Now, take this story and multiply it in scale by millions of times, and you should be able to comprehend why the United States and Israel were moral and responsible in how they responded to the Iranian regime, who has been making repeated threats against the United States and Israel, and have been continually attacking Israel through proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and have been attempting to secretly develop nuclear arms.

Notice how no other country on the planet is coming to Iran’s defense? That’s because it’s obvious how irrational that the Ayatollah is being. And the fact is, no one wants another nuclear weapon to be detonated, especially not in a central location like the eastern Mediterranean.

While I could lay into the pacifistic MAGA, what keeps them from being idiots is that they actually do seem to change their perspective when they realize a few things about how the world works (admittedly, the world isn’t ideal), and that the Iranian regime is the kind that cannot truly be reasoned with.

To the end of increasing understanding, there are a couple things I could point out. First, that the United States is as prosperous as it is because it’s a hegemonic power. When you realize this, many of their foreign policy decisions start to make a lot more sense. It also makes it more clear why Americans eat as well as they do. But when it comes down to it, the world at large has benefitted pretty heavily from the US’s superpower status, including those who they’ve previously conquered. The US has opened up sea lanes to just about everyone, which has been great for global trade. Germany and Japan’s best days came after practically becoming vassal states for the US. While the US can be called an empire, it’s a hugely benevolent empire. If the US were to turn isolationist, other nations would rise to attempt to fill the power void, resulting in global conflict, and it’s highly likely that a less moral nation would assume the vacated position of hegemonic authority. At that point, Americans would likely learn a few things about Russia and China.

Second, it’s naive to think that western values are universal. People in the Middle East actually do take their respective religions seriously, enough so that they allow their religions to have an effect on the way that they live. This is quite eye-opening to the Western world, which largely professes Christianity, but follows philosophical concepts and days of observance which don’t have Biblical origins. As for Iran, only about 30% of Iranians are practicing Muslims, but the entire country is being controlled by a small cadre of religious fanatics who consider it to be their religious duty to fight against Christians and Jews. Most of the Islamic world is not as fanatical as the Ayatollah, and to trust him with a nuclear bomb is like… trusting the Ayatollah with a nuclear bomb. Something as comparably stupid does not come readily to mind. You cannot reason with the Ayatollah unless you know what motivates him, and if you’re a rational person, you’re motivated by different things than he is. And even if you do know what motivates him, you still cannot reason with him.

But thankfully, the irresponsibly pacifistic are not in a position to make decisions on the global stage, and the world is far safer for having the Ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions subverted. And it’s not really necessary for everyone to understand this. If it’s your thing to sit on the sofa and pretend that you’re standing for something, you benefitted from the US’s decision, whether you know it or not.

But one thing that I think most of us can agree on is that we’re better off for not having Kamala Harris being the one issuing the orders.