One of the greatest mistakes nations make is waiting until a catastrophe is already underway before acting against the forces that will cause it.
History sometimes turns on moments we barely notice.
Imagine that Adolf Hitler had been eliminated before he launched World War II. A coup inside Germany, an assassination attempt, or foreign intervention might have removed him from power before the Nazi war machine was unleashed.
Millions would have lived who instead perished. The Holocaust might never have occurred. Europe would not have been devastated by the most destructive war in human history.
Yet preventive action against dangerous regimes is almost always controversial in its own time. People condemn it as reckless. They insist on diplomacy. They warn against escalation.
And then, when catastrophe arrives, they ask why no one acted sooner.
Had such a preventive action taken place at the time, many voices would almost certainly have condemned it. Critics would have argued that removing a head of state violated international law. They would have warned that intervention would destabilize Europe. They would have demanded diplomacy and patience.
In other words, the same arguments that are so often heard before catastrophes unfold.
History’s cruel irony is that when preventive action succeeds, the world rarely appreciates the disaster that never happened.
The catastrophes we prevent are invisible.
The catastrophes we fail to prevent define history.
Today we face a comparable moment.
The Iranian regime - dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ayatollahs - has openly pursued nuclear weapons while simultaneously building a massive ballistic missile arsenal designed to overwhelm defensive systems.
Their ambitions were never hidden.
The danger posed by such a regime cannot be framed merely as a regional issue involving Israel or the Middle East. The trajectory of missile development makes the threat global and progressive.
First comes Eastern Europe.
Then Western Europe.
Then the Eastern United States.
And eventually, the entire American homeland.
Now imagine these missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
Missile range determines the order in which cities become targets.
This is not speculation. Iran accumulated significant quantities of enriched uranium while continuing to advance its missile technology.
At the same time, the regime brutally suppresses its own population. Tens of thousands of citizens have been arrested, tortured, or killed for protesting economic hardship, political repression, or even violations of strict religious dress codes.
A regime that murders its own people without hesitation should not be trusted with nuclear weapons capable of destroying cities.
Under such circumstances, the question becomes unavoidable: Is it wiser to confront a threat before it becomes irreversible, or to wait until the catastrophe is already underway?
Yet many political voices in the United States reacted to military action against Iran not with careful strategic analysis but with immediate condemnation.
Some demanded that Congress should have debated war plans beforehand. This argument is not merely unrealistic - it is dangerous.
Anyone familiar with Washington understands that confidential deliberations rarely remain confidential. Even meetings held behind closed doors frequently leak within hours. Sensitive discussions about military planning would almost certainly become public knowledge.
And once that knowledge spreads, the consequences become predictable.
Iran would disperse assets, reinforce defenses, mobilize retaliation - and possibly launch a preemptive strike.
Leaking war plans does not prevent war.
It only makes the war more deadly.
Strategic surprise saves lives. Public debate about operational details before action does the opposite.
If Iran had learned that the United States was preparing an attack, the regime might have chosen to strike first. A preemptive Iranian move could have resulted in massive casualties and a far more destructive conflict.
Those who insist that congressional debate must precede every military action often ignore this fundamental reality of warfare.
What makes the current debate even more troubling is the political hypocrisy now on display. When the United States intervened militarily in Libya under President Obama, congressional authorization was not secured beforehand. The operation lasted months and evolved into a full-scale military campaign.
Yet many of the same political leaders now insisting on congressional approval for action against Iran defended the Libya intervention at the time.
Recently, Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries was asked about this contradiction by a reporter. The reporter pointed out that Libya posed no imminent nuclear threat to the United States, whereas Iran was actively moving toward nuclear capability.
Jeffries’ answer was simply that “the two situations are different."
Indeed they are. Iran posed a far more serious threat.
Yet somehow that difference is used to justify opposing action now while defending it then.
Principles that change with the party in power are not principles. They are political tactics.
Unfortunately, the deeper problem extends beyond foreign policy.
At the same time that some political leaders criticize efforts to neutralize hostile regimes abroad, they also undermine security at home.
We have witnessed relentless attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), calls to defund law enforcement agencies, and policies that effectively shelter illegal immigrants - including criminals who entered the country through open-border policies.
Encouraging hostility toward law enforcement while weakening border security does not strengthen America. It weakens it. A nation that refuses to defend its own borders while condemning efforts to confront external threats is not demonstrating moral superiority.
It is demonstrating strategic confusion.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this moment is the behavior of certain political figures who once claimed strong support for Israel and American security but now appear increasingly aligned with the loudest voices of the radical left.
I will be blunt: I am personally disgusted by the hypocrisy of Senator Chuck Schumer.
For years he reminded Jewish audiences that his surname derives from the Hebrew word shomer, meaning “guardian." Today his rhetoric and political positioning suggest something very different.
Instead of standing firmly against extremist threats, he increasingly echoes narratives promoted by the most radical elements within his party - groups that openly demonstrate against Israel, tolerate antisemitic rhetoric, and attack the institutions responsible for protecting American citizens.
I find this transformation disturbing and shameful. Even more troubling is that many Americans appear unaware of the scale of the danger.
Public opinion polls suggest that a majority of Americans oppose the current war with Iran.
Perhaps a simple analogy may help illustrate the situation.
Imagine that doctors discover the early signs of cancer developing in your body.
At that moment, you feel fine. The disease has not yet spread. Treatment will be inconvenient. It may involve surgery, medication, unpleasant side effects, and significant cost.
Yet starting treatment early offers the best chance of eliminating the disease before it spreads and becomes fatal.
Now imagine rejecting that treatment.
Instead, you decide to rely on unproven natural remedies, or prayer alone, or simply ignore the diagnosis because you feel healthy today. After all, the treatment is uncomfortable and disruptive.
By the time the cancer spreads and becomes incurable, the opportunity for prevention is gone.
Preventive treatment is always controversial. Waiting for the disease to spread is always easier - until it is too late.
Nations face similar choices.
Ignoring a growing threat may feel comfortable in the moment. Confronting it early is always controversial and inconvenient. But delay often allows the danger to grow beyond control.
And this is why the greatest threat to a nation is not always the enemy outside its borders.
Sometimes the greater danger comes from within - from leaders who place partisan advantage above national security, from institutions that manipulate public opinion, and from political movements that refuse to acknowledge reality when it contradicts their ideology.
External enemies are dangerous. But history repeatedly shows that the most dangerous moments arise when a society loses the will to confront them.
Civilizations are often judged not by how they respond to disasters, but by whether they had the courage to prevent them. And when that courage disappears, the greatest danger is no longer abroad.
It is the enemy from within.
Dr. Avi Perry is a former professor at Northwestern University and a former researcher and executive at Bell Labs. He served as Vice President at NMS Communications and represented the United States on the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Standards Committee. He is the author of the thriller novel “72 VIRGINS", and of “Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks." Recently, he published “Unlocked: A Practical Guide to Learning and Applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Solve Real-World Problems" as well as “A Winner’s Playbook: How to Win by Spotting and Using the Rules Governing Human Behavior," practical rules that guide the path to success. He is a regular op-ed contributor to The Jerusalem Post and Israel National News.