Cory, my friend, I read your statement carefully.
You wrote: “America must be strong and smart. Today’s actions were launched by a president who has rarely proven to be either."
You then proceeded to describe the Iranian regime in language so blistering that I could scarcely improve upon it myself.
You called it “one of the most dangerous, destabilizing forces in the Middle East."
You said it “has American blood on its hands."
You acknowledged it “armed and supported terrorist proxies who have killed tens of thousands."
You stated plainly that Iran remains “the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism."
You warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would be “an intolerable threat."
All true. All accurate. All devastating.
And then - after correctly diagnosing the cancer - you defended the regime remaining in power and argued that we must essentially leave the tumor undisturbed.
How's that?
That isn’t just a contradiction at the heart of a statement but constitutes taking leave of your senses. .
You cannot call a regime murderous and destabilizing - and then insist that removing its leadership is the real danger.
Of all the strange stuff you’ve said before, this, respectfully, was the craziest of all.
Iran are a bunch of deranged killers intent on getting a nuclear weapon to wipe out New Jersey. So we must therefore leave them in power, untouched?
You describe Ali Khamenei’s regime as brutal, terroristic, soaked in blood - but your outrage is directed not at the regime’s survival, but at President Trump who moved against it.
Let’s speak plainly.
If Iran is as evil as you say - and it is - then the world is safer with its terror architects eliminated than with them comfortably entrenched in Tehran.
You can’t have it both ways.
Constitution or Evasion?
You argue that Congress alone has the authority to declare war. You warn of unilateral executive action. You demand strategy, consultation, transparency.
Fine. Those are legitimate constitutional concerns.
But here is what troubles me: the Constitution becomes sacred in your rhetoric precisely at the moment when confronting a terror regime becomes unavoidable.
Where was this ferocious constitutional anxiety when the previous administration flooded Tehran with sanctions relief? Where was the outrage when pallets of cash sent literally byPresident Obama strengthened the very regime you now describe as murderous?
As a Senator, you voted to enable the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - releasing roughly $150 billion in sanctions relief to the Iranian regime and thereby funding their global terror actions.
You knew who they were. You said so yourself.
And yet you armed them with resources.
You armed the arsonist and now complain about the firefighter’s hose?
That money did not disappear into thin air. It empowered militias. It strengthened Hezbollah. It entrenched Iranian influence from Beirut to Baghdad and it paid for October 7th. .
You cannot wash that vote away by cloaking yourself in constitutional scruples today.
You have steadfastly refused to repent for it or repudiate it.
The Strategy Argument - Or the Excuse?
You write:
“No plan for what comes after the bombs."
“No plan for securing nuclear material."
“No plan for preventing a humanitarian catastrophe."
Let me ask you something uncomfortable.
Was there a plan for what would happen after you empowered the regime financially in 2015? What was your plan for the humanitarian disaster of your making?
Was there a plan for how Iran would behave once sanctions were lifted?
Was there a plan for preventing it from channeling funds into proxies?
Was there a plan for stopping it from advancing nuclear capabilities once sunset clauses kicked in?
Was there a plan to protect Jews like your own lively wife whom Iran was murdering all around the world?
History has answered those questions.
You worry about instability after the regime falls - but say little about the instability the regime creates every single day it remains in power.
You describe Iran as a destabilizing force. Yet you argue that removing its leadership risks destabilization.
That is not strategy. That is paralysis dressed up as prudence.
“Strong and Smart"?
You wrote: “America must be strong and smart."
Agreed.
Strength is not issuing statements.
Strength is neutralizing threats.
Smart is not pretending evil regimes can be bribed into moderation.
Smart is learning from twenty years of failed appeasement.
You say Americans feel less safe because of military strikes.
Tell that to Israeli families who have lived under Iranian rockets for decades.
Tell that to American soldiers targeted by Iranian-backed militias.
Tell that to dissidents in Tehran beaten and murdered for demanding freedom.
The world does not become safer by preserving tyrannies.
If you truly believe Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, then explain how preserving its leadership structure makes America safer.
The Regime Change Fear
You warn about regime collapse. You paint scenarios of power struggles, humanitarian crises, unsecured nuclear material.
Those are real risks.
But let’s not romanticize the status quo.
The current regime already brutalizes and slaughter en mass its own people. It already sponsors terror. It already destabilizes the region. It already seeks nuclear capability.
Your statement implies that the greater danger is change.
Sometimes change is the danger.
Sometimes stagnation is.
When a regime chants ‘Death to America,’ maintaining the status quo is not neutrality - it is surrender to inertia.
You say no president should unilaterally wage war.
But presidents have always acted to neutralize imminent threats.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Rubio Warning
You cite Secretary Rubio’s caution that no one can predict what would follow the fall of Iran’s leadership.
Of course we cannot predict it perfectly.
We could not predict the fall of the Soviet Union.
We could not predict the Arab Spring.
We cannot predict any geopolitical earthquake with precision.
The question is not whether the future is uncertain.
The question is whether leaving a terror regime with nuclear ambitions intact is preferable to confronting it.
You describe the regime as intolerable.
Then tolerate it.
That is the contradiction.
This Is Not About Trump
Let me say something that may surprise you: this is not about defending Donald Trump.
You may loathe him. You may distrust him. Most of all, you may crave his office. That is your right.
But moral clarity cannot depend on the occupant of the Oval Office.
If a Democratic president had taken identical action against Iran’s terror apparatus, would your statement read the same?
Be honest.
If your principle changes with the party in power, it is not principle.
That is the hard truth.
The 2015 Vote Still Haunts
You have never truly reckoned with your 2015 vote.
I told you then it was a catastrophic mistake from which you would never recover.
Not because diplomacy is wrong.
But because diplomacy without enforcement, without leverage, without realism becomes appeasement.
You describe Iran as brutalizing its own people “killing thousands in recent weeks."
And yet in 2015 you empowered the very system that now does that killing.
You cannot separate those facts. Nor can you wash your hands of your responsibility.
You cannot denounce the blood on their hands while ignoring the cash in their coffers.
That is why your statement feels hollow.
It is polished. It is full of warnings and constitutional citations.
But it never confronts your own role in strengthening the regime.
Demanding Honesty
Cory, I say this as someone who made you my student President when you were an undergraduate at Oxford.
This moment calls for courage - not caution.
If Iran is what you say it is, then say clearly that its terror leadership must be dismantled.
If you believe your 2015 vote was wrong, say it.
If you believe it was right, defend it in light of everything that followed.
But do not hide behind process while avoiding substance.
You cannot call the regime evil and then recoil when someone fights it.
That is moral whiplash.
What Leadership Looks Like
Leadership is not reflexive opposition.
Leadership is not calibrated outrage.
Leadership is not invoking the Constitution only when politically convenient.
Leadership is moral coherence.
Leadership is above all else moral courage.
Right now, your statement lacks coherence.
You diagnose the disease vividly - and then condemn the surgeon.
You warn about the threat - and then criticize the effort to remove it.
You demand safety - while objecting to decisive action against the source of danger.
Cory, you and I countless times discussed the moral courage of Moses, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Elie Wiesel. We agreed that life had to be lived courageously..
So for goodness make, do it.
Stop choosing party over principle.
Stop reading polls in the morning and voting in the afternoon.
Stop pretending that confronting a terror regime is more dangerous than allowing it to thrive.
America must indeed be strong and smart.
Strength means confronting evil.
Smart means not funding it in the first place.
History will not judge this moment by how elegantly senators quoted the Constitution.
It will judge it by whether the world became safer.
And if the regime you correctly call murderous is weakened or dismantled, the world will, in fact, be safer.
You can oppose Trump.
But do not oppose the defeat of terror.
Not when you yourself have so eloquently described the monster.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, widely known as “America’s Rabbi", is one of the world’s most recognized and influential Jewish voices. A bestselling author, award-winning columnist, global human rights advocate, and dynamic public speaker, he has dedicated his life to spreading Jewish values, defending the Jewish people, and championing universal human dignity. The international bestselling author of 36 books that have been translated into multiple languages and sold millions of copies worldwide, his writings are known for their boldness, accessibility, and unapologetic defense of morality in the modern age. In 2000, Rabbi Shmuley became the only rabbi to win The Times of London’s prestigious “Preacher of the Year" competition, and remains the record-holder to this day. He has also been honored with the American Jewish Press Association’s highest award for excellence in commentary, cementing his reputation as one of the foremost Jewish communicators in the world. Follow him on Instagram and X @RabbiShmuley.