End this war now.
I stand firmly on the side of the American people and our troops and against the war of aggression in Iran started by the Israeli government and the Donald Trump administration. This war of choice is in violation of both international law and the U.S. Constitution, which requires congressional authorization for war.
I expect our elected representatives to use all means at their disposal to end this war, whether they be our U.S. senators and representatives, governor or state lawmakers.
Furthermore, anyone who aspires to office, either in 2026 or 2028, needs to be clear now that they stand against this war. Retroactive protestation of regret, or of being misled, as some politicians did after the Iraq War, will carry no weight.
If you support the war at this moment, the American people will not vote for you. Period.
— Mohiuddin Ahmed, River Forest
We’ll know in 5 years
First, as to whether the attacks on Iran are a good idea, ask back in five years. Regardless of whether you are for or against the idea of the attacks, we’re really not going to know whether the attacks are a good idea until we see how they play out and things develop. Obviously, partisans (and there are plenty on both sides) think they already know what the answer is. As for me, I will wait and see.
Second, consider North Korea. I remember back in the 1990s and 2000s, American presidents said that North Korea must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. But, ultimately, just saying that, plus imposing sanctions and trying to negotiate with the North Koreans, didn’t work, and in 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test, joining the nuclear club. It is my understanding that the George W. Bush administration just did not see a good way to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons at that point.
Which brings us to Iran. Once again, president after president has said that Iran must not get nuclear weapons. But nobody has really figured out how to stop Iran. President Barack Obama tried negotiations, but even the terms of the Iran nuclear agreement would only have delayed Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Sanctions have been tried, at varying levels of severity, but they weren’t going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, either. Iran has consistently refused to do what was necessary for the world to know it would never get nuclear weapons.
But maybe, because of everything that has happened since Oct. 7, 2023, the situation in Iran has reached a point in which, unlike the situation the Bush administration faced with North Korea, there was a chance to take action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I don’t know whether what the Donald Trump administration has done, and is doing, will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but I do think that just negotiating would not have worked. It didn’t work with North Korea; it wouldn’t have worked with Iran.
Whether what the Trump administration has done will work? Well, check back in five years.
— Patrick J. Allen, River Forest
On dangerous ground
To learn that dozens of children were killed in the earliest hours of the United States-Israeli military assault on Iran should cause chills and gut-wrenching agony in all Americans of conscience.
President Donald Trump’s dismissive reaction was calling for retribution for the three U.S. soldiers killed on a military base, as if he were unaware of the consequences of his aggression. Shredding predecessor Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran became a clear indication of Trump’s desire for war.
Another thing should remain clear: China will not remain idle while the United States attempts to cut off its access to Iranian oil. Trump is treading on very dangerous ground potentially affecting our very existence.
— Sid Sussman, Hallandale Beach, Florida
Shareholders in war
Whaddya know! Manufacturing has returned to the U.S. We manufacture war. And we, fellow Americans, are the shareholders.
— Carey Payne, Elk Grove Village
When will Congress lead?
I am now sick to my stomach.
Here we go again being at war with no plan. What is the mission? Why are we doing this? What is the desired outcome? How many soldiers are we willing to lose? How many civilians will be killed? How much damage will be inflicted? How much will be spent, now and to rebuild? Why was Congress not involved? Will this war end or go on for 20 years with no resolution?
The amount of money that America chooses to spend on destruction, here or targeted at other countries, is appalling. Yet we can’t seem to figure out a way to pay for health care for all of us. We can spend money on guns and bullets to destroy our own citizens, and we can spend enormous amounts of money for missiles, bombs and military craft, but not for child care or elder care. It seems that our priorities are confused.
It appears that this president wants to remake our country and now the world in his image of carnage that he has proclaimed so often. When will Congress finally take back and use its constitutional power to rein in these dangerous and costly actions?
In this darkness, when will the Congress finally take the lead to stop these impetuous decisions and do what governments should do, which is to take care of their people?
— Laura Davis, Inverness
Put American lives first
I am an older millennial. When I graduated high school 20 years ago, the Iraq surge defined the backdrop of our lives. Some of my classmates enlisted straight out of graduation, drawn by service, duty and the promise of a college education. They came home changed. Some carried visible wounds. Others carried injuries no one could see.
For my generation, war is not abstract. It is the empty chair at Thanksgiving. It is the friend who never quite came back the same.
That is why it is troubling to watch the current trajectory of the Donald Trump administration’s foreign policy. The promise of “America First” was clear. No more endless wars. No more nation building. No more acting as the world’s police officer. Yet the posture we are seeing now feels familiar.
The United States military is the most capable fighting force in the world. But strength does not require constant deployment. Being the best does not mean inserting ourselves into every conflict. Capability is not obligation.
History has shown that regime change imposed by outside force rarely delivers stability. From Iraq to Afghanistan, toppling governments proved far easier than building lasting peace. Power vacuums create chaos. American service members and taxpayers pay the price.
If “America First” means anything, it should mean strategic restraint. It should mean exhausting diplomacy before deploying force. It should mean recognizing that not every global crisis demands an American invasion.
My grandfather, a war veteran, said it best. People are always willing to send others to war if they are not the ones fighting and dying. Too often, decisions about military action are made by those who will never bear the cost.
This is not isolationism. American leadership matters. But leadership is not synonymous with intervention. My generation came of age in the shadow of Iraq. We were told those wars would be quick and decisive. We are still living with the consequences.
Putting America first should mean putting American lives first. We cannot afford to relearn the same lesson.
— Joseph Harrod, Chicago
Outrage is no strategy
I’m a writer shaped by my Czech-Jewish father’s escape from Nazism and the final letter his father wrote before deportation to a death camp; I have spent years reflecting on war and its moral consequences. In that letter, my grandfather urged his son to practice medicine not for wealth but to relieve human suffering. My father lived by those words.
A president who calls himself a “peace president” should recognize the contradiction in suggesting that America can or should forcibly reshape every nation that mistreats its people. Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan offer sobering reminders that wars begun to “teach a lesson” rarely remain limited. They expand, invite retaliation and cost innocent lives — those nations’ and ours.
Moral outrage at oppression is understandable. But outrage is not a strategy. If the United States assumes the role of global enforcer, we risk perpetual conflict under the banner of righteousness.
Strength is not shown by how quickly we use force, but by how wisely we restrain it.
— Joanie Holzer Schirm, Orlando, Florida
Where the buck stops
Why can’t we elect a president who knows where the buck stops?
— Marlene Brandis, Suwanee, Georgia
Unchecked reign allowed
Operation Epic Fury should describe the feelings of every American toward this idiotic and illegal war that our president has declared. Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have offered different versions of why this attack was “necessary.” It was not.
This war is for the political purposes of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So many lives will be lost. And all the Republicans in power share the blame for it all, as they have allowed this president to reign unchecked.
— Gerry McGovern, Naperville
This will change world
The war in Iran is the world’s 9/11. Nothing will be the same.
— David C. Schueler, Columbia, Illinois
Not the way to safety
President Donald Trump’s war on Iran has not been justified to the nation or Congress, much less the United Nations.
There are inexcusable attacks on civilians — on hospitals and on a girls’ school in Minab, killing dozens of children — without regard to United Nations conventions and international law. Not to speak of misusing our soldiers and their consciences.
The status of the United States as the beacon of democracy and the leader of the free world is in jeopardy.
Americans who still believe in international cooperation, multilateralism and democracy must stand up and be heard; they must not cower before the “might makes right” display of power and threats against dissent such as the banning of the firm Anthropic.
Recall that Trump in his first term shredded the multilateral nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran. Now Trump threatens more destruction. This is not the way to safety and peace in the world. It’s the opposite.
— Tony Quintanilla, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
