THOMAS SOWELL WARNS WEST ON IRAN IN 2025 STRIKE AFTERMATH. At 94, Thomas Sowell delivers a powerful rebuke of U.S. policy on Iran, calling Israel's 2025 airstrike a necessary response to Western inaction.

  

A Voice of Clarity Amid Crisis: Thomas Sowell on the Iranian Threat and Western Delusion

In June 2025, as the world stood on the edge of regional catastrophe, a 94-year-old voice of seasoned clarity emerged once more to confront the illusions of Western diplomacy and moral indecision. That voice belonged to Thomas Sowell, the prolific economist, social theorist, and conservative intellectual whose sharp critiques have spanned generations. In a speech that echoed with urgency and conviction, Sowell addressed the Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and the broader failure of American foreign policy.

Israel's airstrike—Operation Rising Lion—was not merely a bold military maneuver. It was, in Sowell's words, "a belated attempt to restore deterrence in a region unraveling under the weight of American indecision." The context was dire: Iran had enriched uranium to near weapons-grade purity, installed advanced centrifuges, and expanded its nuclear infrastructure in defiance of international norms. The IAEA had just declared Iran non-compliant with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In response, Israel struck several nuclear and military sites, killing top IRGC commanders. Iran responded with 14 missiles directed at a U.S. airbase in Qatar—13 were intercepted, the last fell harmlessly in the desert.

Sowell framed this as the bitter fruit of years of strategic failure. His central thesis: the West's greatest modern illusion is that fanatical regimes can be contained by the same logic that governed Cold War deterrence. The Soviet Union, for all its brutality, valued survival. Iran's theocratic regime, by contrast, exalts martyrdom and welcomes destruction if it serves their concept of divine glory. "You can't deter suicide bombers," Sowell warned, "yet for over a decade, American policymakers clung to the fantasy that Iran could be contained through diplomacy, sanctions, and conferences."

Sowell's critique was unsparing. He singled out the Obama administration’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), not for minor flaws but for its foundational naivety. He argued that the deal was not a masterstroke of diplomacy but a timetable for escalation. In exchange for temporary restrictions, Iran received billions in unfrozen assets, sanctions relief, and legitimacy on the global stage. Its leaders, in return, made promises to delay—not dismantle—their nuclear ambitions.

The results, he noted, were predictable: funding for terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis, ballistic missile development, and attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure. Sowell reserved particular ire for the so-called "sunset clauses," which were scheduled to expire by 2025, allowing Iran to resume enrichment and centrifuge development legally. The world, he argued, had effectively given Iran the green light to cross the nuclear threshold.

What set Sowell’s analysis apart was not merely his grasp of policy detail but his philosophical lens. Foreign policy, he argued, must be judged not by intentions but by consequences. "It is not compassion to let enemies grow stronger while you posture for applause," he said, condemning the moral exhibitionism of the diplomatic elite. He likened modern diplomacy to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler—well-intentioned but ruinously naive.

Even Trump’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018 and the subsequent "maximum pressure" campaign did not reverse the tide. Though Iran’s economy was squeezed, its nuclear program advanced. Sowell acknowledged the partial course correction but lamented that without direct action, rhetoric was just noise. "Rhetoric does not destroy centrifuges," he quipped.

He also addressed a chilling reality: the failure of international institutions. The United Nations, the IAEA, and a string of multinational conferences had failed to enforce compliance or even maintain the illusion of control. Iran lied, obfuscated, and accelerated its program, confident that the West would flinch before acting.

The Israeli strike, therefore, was not a matter of politics but of existential necessity. For Israel, facing a regime that has openly called for its destruction, waiting any longer was untenable. Sowell lamented that such a heavy responsibility had fallen to a nation "smaller than Lake Michigan," only because the United States had failed to lead.

More broadly, Sowell condemned the Western intellectual class for recoiling from moral clarity. He mocked their aversion to naming enemies, their obsession with "escalatory cycles," and their reluctance to acknowledge evil. To Sowell, this was not mere cowardice but a betrayal of principle. "They do not want to believe that some enemies cannot be reasoned with."

He concluded with a stark choice: abandon illusions or court disaster. The West, he warned, is at a crossroads. Iran is not deterred. Its proxies remain active. Its leadership, defiant and unrepentant, has vowed revenge. The missile strike on the U.S. base in Qatar, though mostly thwarted, is a signal of intent. And the Strait of Hormuz—the choke point for global oil—is under threat.

"You don’t get to choose the world you live in," Sowell said. "Only how you respond to it." With that, he called for a return to moral seriousness, strategic clarity, and the courage to act. In his twilight years, Sowell has issued perhaps one of his most urgent warnings—a sobering reminder that while history does not repeat itself exactly, it often rhymes. Whether the West will heed that warning remains to be seen.

caring is sharing