Emergency

If there was ever a time for conscious loving...

War. Again.

As you’ve seen, war is suddenly raging in Iran and spreading to surrounding countries. I invite all of us to be especially vigilant right now and provide our steadying current of love and forgiveness moment by critical moment. We join many millions of peace makers around the world doing the same thing right now.

Our world hovers on a precipice. Now is the time, and even one of us consciously contributing our loving frequency, could tip an invisible scale somewhere somehow with someone in the invisible quantum field.

For those who’d appreciate a very brief history overview, I offer the following. You’ll notice that there are no conclusions here. My purpose is to provide context that helps us understand how we got to this moment and how complex this situation is, so we can avoid taking sides and continue to be in the middle way.

Thank you for your balanced contribution.

CONTEXT FOR THE CURRENT IRAN CONFLICT

History offers a useful lens for moments like this. In the 1930s, Neville Chamberlain believed accommodation would preserve peace; Winston Churchill warned that unchecked aggression invites greater conflict. Churchill - as rough in his day as Trump is now - prevailed, and Hitler was defeated.

Today’s debate over confronting Iran echoes that tension. Some see firmness as escalation; others see it as deterrence. History will tell the tale.

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has defined itself in open opposition to the United States. Anti-American rhetoric has been embedded in the regime’s revolutionary identity, and that hostility has often translated into action — directly or through proxies.

The historical record includes:

• 1979: Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

• 1983: Iran supported Hezbollah in the Beirut Marine barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. service members.

• 1984: Hezbollah kidnapped CIA station chief William Buckley; he later died in captivity.

• 1984: Hezbollah bombed the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 Americans.

• 2003–2011: Iranian-backed militias in Iraq supplied explosively formed penetrators and other weapons that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of U.S. troops.

• 2019: Iran shot down a U.S. surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz amid escalating tensions.

• 2020: Following the U.S. strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, Iran launched ballistic missiles at U.S. forces stationed in Iraq, injuring dozens of American service members.

• 2021–2023: Iranian-backed militias carried out repeated rocket and drone attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria.

• January 28, 2024: A drone strike by an Iranian-backed militia on a U.S. position in Jordan (Tower 22) killed three American soldiers and wounded dozens.

This pattern shapes how many Americans interpret present decisions. For critics of confrontation, diplomacy reduces risk. For others, decades of proxy warfare, hostage-taking, and missile attacks suggest that restraint has not moderated the regime’s posture.

Recent administrations — including those of Barack Obama and Joe Biden — pursued diplomatic strategies that included sanctions relief and financial access in exchange for nuclear constraints. Supporters viewed this as pragmatic statecraft; critics argue that financial relief freed resources for regional influence and proxy operations.

Iran’s modern history is also intertwined with Western intervention, including Britain’s early 20th-century oil dominance and the 1953 coup tied to control of energy resources. That history fuels mistrust inside Iran and complicates any simple narrative.

The stakes today are enormous. Weakening or overthrowing the current regime fundamentally reshapes the Middle East and potentially opens a path toward greater regional stability. Or, it may unleash internal fragmentation, increase retaliation against U.S. assets, detonate global energy shocks, and lead to a wider war.

History does not offer easy analogies. Chamberlain and Churchill represent enduring tensions in statecraft — between accommodation and confrontation, caution and resolve. The real challenge is to assess the present moment with clarity about both the regime’s record and the risks inherent in any decisive action.

I hope this brief history helps give us a more nuanced understanding so that we can avoid the rush to judgement that simplistic headlines always encourage.

Love is the central way.