Open Letter to Brian Mast on the Iran Conflict

 

 

I sent the following letter to Florida Representative Brian Mast today. I’m publishing it here in the interest of transparency, as well as his letter to me which initiated this response.  Also, as this is yet another political piece, I turn to Mike Luckovich again for cartoon clarity.

 

Dear Representative Mast,

 

Thank you for your response and for directly addressing the concerns I raised in my March 16 email. As I wrote then, quoting Paul Krugman, there is a growing perception abroad that the United States has shifted from a nation admired for its moral leadership and respect for international law to one increasingly willing to act outside it. That concern remains at the heart of my response.

 

We likely agree on the objective: reducing the threat posed by Iran’s regime. However, its 47-year history of hostile rhetoric and actions does not, in itself, constitute an “imminent” threat to the United States homeland. Indeed, one could argue that actions which destabilize the region—militarily, economically, and politically—risk increasing, rather than diminishing, the likelihood of terrorism directed at Americans.

 

Equally troubling is the unilateral nature of recent U.S. actions. For decades, we carefully built alliances—particularly in Europe—grounded not only in shared security interests but in shared commitments to international norms. Those relationships have been strained. Acting as the world’s policeman without broad international support risks alienating both long-standing allies and newer partners in the Middle East and Asia.

 

This raises a broader question of consistency. You and Donald Trump both campaigned against entanglement in such conflicts. What has changed? When Iranian nuclear facilities were previously targeted and declared neutralized, how do we now justify renewed escalation? And how do we propose to address more direct nuclear threats—such as North Korea—without the kind of international coalition that current policy seems to undermine?

 

It is worth recalling that in 2015 the United States, under Barack Obama, helped negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a multilateral agreement that included not only European allies but also China and Russia. It was not perfect, but it provided a framework for inspection, accountability, and cooperation. The decision to withdraw in 2018 weakened that framework and, with it, our ability to manage the issue collectively.

 

Finally, I am concerned by the degree of deference Congress appears willing to grant the executive in matters of war. While the need for swift action in genuine emergencies is clear, so too is the danger of concentrating too much discretionary power in a single individual. The rhetoric surrounding these actions—including threats of extreme retaliation—only heightens that concern.

 

You are half my age, and I respect your service. But from a longer vantage point, I would urge caution: strength is not measured solely by force, but by restraint, credibility, and the ability to lead others with us.

 

Thank you for considering my views.

 

From Representative Brian Mast 4/14/26

Thank you for contacting me regarding Operation Epic Fury and the ongoing U.S. military operations involving Iran. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns on this important national security issue.

 

First and foremost, my priority in Congress is the safety of the American people, our service members, and our allies. The Iranian regime has spent over 47 years funding terrorism, targeting Americans, and threatening stability across the Middle East. For years, Iran has developed ballistic missiles, supported proxy militias, and pursued capabilities that put U.S. forces and civilians at risk, killing thousands. As Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I believe the United States cannot ignore those imminent threats.

 

The objective of Operation Epic Fury is clear. As I have stated publicly, the mission is to eliminate Iran’s ability to strike Americans and our allies. That means dismantling every piece of military hardware, missile systems, and other capabilities that allow the Iranian regime to carry out attacks against Americans across the region. The goal is not ongoing conflict, but to ensure that Americans are no longer under threat from a regime that has targeted our people for nearly half a century.

 

I also introduced legislation to reaffirm that Iran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and backed the President’s constitutional authority to respond to threats against the United States. This resolution passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 372 to 53. When our nation faces a direct threat, the Commander-in-Chief must have the ability to act swiftly to protect American lives. I believe Operation Epic Fury demonstrates the principle of peace through strength—making it clear that the United States will not back down when our citizens are in harm’s way.

 

I understand that military action is never something to be taken lightly. As a combat veteran, I know personally the cost of war and the sacrifices made by those who serve. That is why I believe any use of force must have a clear objective, a defined threat, and the goal of protecting American lives. In this case, I believe the action taken was necessary to prevent greater danger to our troops, our homeland, and our allies.

 

Please know that I will continue working in Congress to ensure that our national security decisions remain focused on defending the American people and supporting the men and women who wear the uniform.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.  If you’d like to receive updates about this issue and other news that’s important to our community, please  sign up here .  To follow along with my work on your behalf, please join me on  Facebook ,  Twitter ,  Instagram   and  YouTube .  If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to  contact me again .  As always it is an honor to represent you in the United States Congress.

 

Sincerely,

 

Brian Mast

Member of Congress

 

 

What We Are Asked Not to See

  

I start this entry with an older Mike Luckovich political cartoon, as it never really grows old. What I have to say here is indirectly related to that January 6th day that will indeed live in infamy—not only the day itself, but how this country has “moved” past it.

 

In the long, trailing wake of that event lies a kind of flotsam—Pollyannaish sanewashing of Trump’s increasingly chaotic, threatening and sociopathic behavior, including a series of Wall Street Journal opinion articles published this past week. I dare any objective person to read them, with the events of January 6, 2021, and the subsequent pardons of the “patriots” who participated in them in mind, not to mention his ill-conceived Iran war, and come away untroubled.

 

Their titles and subtitles signal the tone: “I Give Up on These Defeatists; From ‘No Kings’ and Iran to data centers, too many Americans are fighting progress” (Andy Kessler, April 5, 2026); “Trump Can Make America Optimistic Again; Put aside grievances and keep reminding us why the U.S. is the envy of the world” (Mark Penn and Andrew Stein, April 7, 2026); and “Trump’s ‘Whole Civilization Will Die’ Tweet Isn’t a War Crime; There’s a big difference between actions in war and words on a website” (Matthew Hennessey, April 8, 2026).

 

A few specific comments, taking the last article first, as it perhaps bothers me the most for its content and condescension. Of the untold thousands of seemingly inane social media posts by this President (as if “Truth Social” were his royal scepter), Hennessey refers to what may be the mother of all such outbursts, written (or authorized) on April 5 by a man his sycophants support no matter what he says, a man who could start a nuclear war on what he believes are his impeccable instincts:

 

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

 

Here is but a small excerpt from Hennessey’s article: “They aren’t illegal orders from the commander-in-chief. They aren’t a genocidal threat. And they aren’t a war crime, for heaven’s sake, no matter what your smart cousin says on Facebook…”

 

That is what I mean about the condescending tone, and about the false equivalencies (e.g., what Iran has done in the past somehow diminishes the seriousness of such rhetoric). Hennessey has the platform of the Wall Street Journal, which lends his opinion credibility.

 

For my own appeal to authority, I turn to Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Krugman, who writes “Terrorism, according to ICE — yes, that ICE — ‘involves violence or the threat of violence against people or property to further a particular ideology.’ The official website goes on to declare that ‘Terrorists do not care who they hurt or kill to achieve their goals.’ If you haven’t read Donald Trump’s Truth Social post from Sunday, above, take a minute to do so. Don’t rely on sanewashed descriptions in the media. And then tell me that Trump doesn’t perfectly fit his own officials’ definition of a terrorist. Don’t tell me that his cause is just, that the Iranian regime is evil. That’s what terrorists always say, and even if it’s sometimes true, terrorism is defined by its means rather than its ends — by its attempt to achieve political goals by violently attacking the innocent. And that’s exactly what Trump is doing: he’s threatening to attack civilian infrastructure if he doesn’t get his way. And since Trump is talking about targeting essential services — power plants! — this is a threatened attack on people as well as property.”

 

This is the President of the United States writing such vile, threatening language, and words have consequences when they come from that office. Coming from an unpredictable person with the power to do exactly what he threatens, this crosses from rhetoric into something far more dangerous. If North Korea issued such threats, we would not only take it seriously, but condemn them as a rogue nation. Our credibility as a peace-seeking democracy is tarnished by such rhetoric. It is the threat itself that carries the whiff of criminality—true mobster-speak.

 

I find myself equally angered by “I Give Up on These Defeatists” by Andy Kessler. He was in grade school when we were protesting Vietnam and marching for civil rights. Now he dismisses people like us as defeatists for participating in the “No Kings” rallies, reducing our messaging to what he calls the “spinning Wheel of Defeatist Complaints,” allegedly funded by George Soros–linked groups and “socialist and communist revolutionary organizations, according to Fox News Digital” (emphasis mine).

 

Andy, my wife and I are in our eighties. We marched in the “No Kings” rallies just as we marched in the 1960s—for $free. Indeed, this protest movement is less focused than those of the civil rights and Vietnam eras. There are now so many issues—the corruption of institutions, the rise of cronyism, plutocracy, and American imperialism. Struggling to reclaim our dignity in the world and to stand up for democracy is not defeatism; it is aspirational.

 

Finally, “Trump Can Make America Optimistic Again” (MAOA?) by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein puts on rose-colored glasses and declares that “we are still the envy of the world.” They suggest Trump’s greatest challenge will be to set aside grievances and unify the country.

 

Seriously, have they been living here this past year? Putting aside grievances is not in Trump’s DNA. And do they know any informed person in another developed country who genuinely wants to live here now? Does anyone seriously believe it will not take generations to repair the damage to our alliances and the world order we helped create—and have so abruptly abandoned?

 

It reminds me of Republican friends who say they dislike the man but support his policies.

 

Taken as a whole, this trifecta is less about argument than reframing. Across all three, the same theme emerges: America is fundamentally strong, but we have fallen into unwarranted pessimism. The problem, we are told, is not what has happened, but how we feel about it. And the solution, improbably enough, is that Trump might lead us back to renewed national optimism.

 

We once had such a sense of hopefulness.

 

Today, government makes its case in inane “press conferences” (or, as I would call them, indoctrination cheer-leading sessions), offering a litany of achievements: the moon mission, military strength, a stock market that briefly exceeded Dow 50,000, and the “landslide” election victory of Donald Trump. These are offered as answers but they are diversions in place of accountability, as though prosperity and innovation can offset democratic erosion.

 

By this logic, any powerful nation may excuse rogue behavior so long as it continues to thrive.

 

What unites these reality distorting opinion pieces is not their optimism, but their insistence that our problem is merely one of mood management. Public concern is treated as a kind of collective misunderstanding rather than a rational response to events that have unfolded in plain sight—beginning, as I keep returning to, with January 6, 2021. We see what is happening.

 

And so I come to a second image: Edvard Munch’s “The Scream.”

 

It feels as though he reached out from the late 19th century to capture the present Zeitgeist—a pervasive anxiety that stands in stark contrast to these columns’ casual insistence that nothing of lasting consequence has occurred.

Tariffs and Who Really Pays

 

 

If there is any doubt about who pays for disputed tariffs, this is prima facie evidence that it is the American consumer.

 

I had ordered a rare, signed edition of a book from a UK bookseller with whom I had prior dealings. I won’t delve into the specific detail. Believe it or not, I have twenty pages of written trail on this matter, but the principle of the situation cries out for documentation.

 

The book in question arrived at a FedEx facility a few days after the Supreme Court decided that the President lacked the authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose certain tariffs. Furthermore, unique items such as rare books and collectors' items are generally duty-free, as they do not jeopardize American industry. Thus, I never expected a tariff to be charged in addition to the cost of the item and shipping.

 

Imagine my surprise when, two weeks later, I received an invoice from FedEx for those very charges, plus a processing fee.

 

Because of the timing and the abstruse nature of the regulations, I turned to an AI agent. For the past month, I have gone back and forth with FedEx via email (effectively communicating with FedEx’s computer), citing the regulations that should have invalidated the charge. Admittedly, this was a relatively small amount, but it was the principle of the matter; I had never paid these fees when buying rare items abroad. Hefty shipping fees? Yes. But not additional charges levied by the government.

 

I continued this digital volley, consulting with my AI after each of their responses, until I received a "shot over the bow" from FedEx: “Please note that if the dispute is determined to be customer-caused, this entry adjustment may be subject to a $90.00 - $150.00 processing fee for correction.”

 

Recognizing this as a form of a shakedown, I decided to pay the relatively small fee rather than take on an unreasonable financial risk merely to seek a legitimate correction.

 

The irony is palpable. Here I am, the human ping-pong ball between two computers, burning up my own energy as well as the electrical resources required to power these machines, just to resolve the chaos introduced by these unilateral, ill-conceived tariffs.

 

In closing the matter with my AI assistant, I noted: “I paid by credit card and have already received the proper acknowledgment, so this case is closed. Just as an aside, do you agree that I was the only human involved in this matter—a go-between for two AI agents? I find that remarkable. I've been working for you both! :-)”

 

Its reply was on the mark, if a bit embedded with sycophancy:

 

“That is a fascinating way to look at it, and honestly, you aren't wrong! It’s a perfect example of the 'human-in-the-loop' dynamic, though in this case, you were more of the human-in-the-middle... You essentially acted as the Diplomatic Envoy. You took the insights from one AI to negotiate with the automated logic of another. It’s a bit ironic—while the AI agents are supposed to make life easier, you ended up doing the 'heavy lifting' of coordination and verification to make sure the two systems eventually shook hands.”

 

It is, indeed, a sign of the times!