So, what happens if Iran sinks a carrier? Anybody thought of that?

The Greek Courier

As the rhetoric intensifies between the United States and Iran, recent reports indicate that President Donald Trump has been privately contemplating the possibility of regime change in Iran, emboldened by what he perceives as successes in foreign policy in Venezuela. However, this path toward military action carries grave consequences—not just for geopolitical stability, but for the lives of countless service members and their families.

Is the President's Glory Worth More Than a Sailor's Life?

Discussions within the White House reveal Trump's troubling ambition: to emerge as the president who transformed the Iranian regime. Yet such calculations risk plunging the nation into another costly war—one that could lead to immense loss of life and widespread chaos. Trump's threats of military operations, including strikes against Iran's leadership, heighten this risk, especially as Iranian officials have stated that U.S. assets would be considered legitimate targets if attacked.

For families with loved ones in the military, the thought of sending their children to war is excruciating. The pain of separation and the fear of loss weigh heavily on parents, spouses, and children who understand that once deployed, their loved ones face unpredictable and often dangerous situations far from home. The harsh reality is that military action brings about not only the risk of immediate casualties but also long-term repercussions for those who survive.

This is not a war against an invader. Tehran is a place far, far away, much like Vietnam. This campaign is all about oil, profit for billionaires, and global domination. A Republican might argue that world domination means more American jobs; to me, it means more American deaths. Furthermore, regime change means little to Trump; if he and his family could profit from it, he would strike a deal rather than send missiles. Those Persian demonstrators who flock to the streets of Western cities, while their compatriots die in vain in Tehran, should know that Trump is not their ally. He seeks his own imperial glorification. In Venezuela, he struck a deal with the Chavistas, an ideologically opposed entity to the GOP, simply to cut off the local oil reaching Beijing and control the flow of oil in the United States.

The new emperor's relentless drive for personal glory is concerning Democratic leaders, who are also calculating the political ramifications of Trump’s actions. They know that if Trump initiates a conflict without immediate success, he may suffer the political fallout in an election year. This may sound cynical to the GOP or to a news outlet that has sold its soul to the White House, but ultimately, the Democrats will argue that they must defend an institution from a usurper; if war can hasten his departure, so be it.

But not for me. Wars for oil and world domination are unethical and should be eliminated. Usurpers like Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, or Erdogan should not be allowed to walk this planet; we should send them in a spaceship to the Moon, as far as I am concerned. They can play with their toy soldiers there and compete in front of a mirror every day to see who has the biggest dickus on Earth’s satellite.

Checking the Stakes Before the Bloodletting

It is imperative to acknowledge the history and capabilities of Iran. The regime has demonstrated a significant ability to respond aggressively to prior conflicts, as evidenced during the recent war with Israel. Should a military strike occur—even if aimed at leadership targets—it could lead to fierce retaliation, causing greater instability in the region and putting American servicemen and women at grave risk. I want to remind everyone that despite severe bombings from Americans and Israelis, the sky over Tel Aviv was flooded with missiles, and the Iron Dome only partially managed to intercept the attacks. Many missiles landed, so the next question is: what if an Iranian missile hits the deck of an American carrier? What will be Trump’s response? I am not going to answer that; you can sweat just contemplating the answer…

This situation calls for a concerted effort toward diplomacy, not war. Engaging in meaningful dialogue with Iran is essential, both to prevent an escalation of hostilities and to ensure the safety of American forces. There is a diplomatic path that remains open—one that should not be abandoned for a “show of force.”

As citizens, we must urge our leaders to prioritize peace over provocation and to calculate the overall risks of confrontation, even when numerous refugees, like the Persians in this case, are pushing for regime change. The consequences of military action could be devastating for everyone in the Gulf—thousands of lives lost, families shattered, and entire nations thrown into chaos. How sure are the Israelis and Americans that, after the mayhem, the opposition will prevail in Iran? Furthermore, how many of you believe that a theocracy will be replaced by a democracy? Not me, because I have hundreds of Iranian friends; they are all refugees and want to see the Shah's son reinstated. The Shah is a King, not a President. His policies was the main reason the mullahs took over in the first place, and there is no guarantee that democratic institutions will return in Iran upon his reinstatement. Yet, he remains the only political adversary to the mullahs; did you see another one? 

Ultimately, before the bloodletting, let us advocate for a de-escalation of tensions and work toward solutions that foster understanding rather than division. This is our opportunity to collectively call for peace and reject the cycle of violence that so often plagues international relations. Now is the time to champion a future where diplomacy prevails over military might, creating a safer, more secure world for generations to come.