Every Philosophy 101 student knows the dilemma. If given the chance to kill Adolf Hitler years before his tyrannical ambitions unleashed death and destruction, would you be willing to pull the trigger and end the life of the innocent Austrian art student he seemed to be?

For most of us, the answer was clear.

Given what you know now – that Hitler would be responsible for the deaths of millions – the life of that aspiring but not very talented art student would be a small price to pay to at least attempt to prevent the Holocaust and World War II. Of course, there would be unforeseen and unintended consequences. No war means no war heroes, for instance. Cancel the presidencies of Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. But that would just be the beginning. There would be no way to gauge whether the death of Hitler before he came to power would actually improve the world or not. Still, considering the 70 million to 85 million deaths caused by WWII, most of us would probably roll the dice.

But that was yesterday’s moral dilemma. Cue the Iranian nuclear bomb scenario.

For the past three weeks, every social influencer, Hollywood celebrity, cable TV news panelist, and Twitter user has weighed in on the wisdom of the United States going to war on the side of Israel in order to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. The arguments against it have ranged from the vacuity of “orange man bad” to the more........

© RealClearPolitics