After six canceled and delayed flights, I was finally able to get home to Israel last week, having been stranded in the U.S. for three weeks due to the war. I used my time productively, conducting 20 interviews and briefings in the last two weeks alone. Most of my interviewers were interested in my perspective as a dual American-Israeli citizen on the war against the Islamic Republic, the challenges in Israel, and my not being there with my family.

In one of the conversations, the host affirmed his support for the war and Israel repeatedly, but also repeatedly stated that he drew a line at U.S. “boots on the ground.” At the moment, I agreed with him. The goal is the absolute elimination and prevention of any Iranian nuclear and long-range missile program, and to create the conditions for millions of Iranians to rise up and finally take back their country from the extremist Islamists after nearly half a century, precluding the need for “boots on the ground.”

After the interview, the conversation replayed in my mind, and I began to wonder rhetorically, why not boots on the ground? If we agree that the war is just and necessary, and that its goals of eliminating the Islamic Republic and its threats are essential, why would we put any limits on what’s needed to do so? And if putting limits, such as a red line of U.S. troops on the ground, might impede the operations’ ultimate success, is that not counterproductive? Could it not enable the Islamic Republic to regenerate itself and create havoc and terror for another half a century?

Since the interview, there have been reports of possible limited operations that might see U.S. boots on the ground, along the........

© Townhall