During the American Civil War, Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman repeatedly noted that "War Is Hell."
He was describing the cruelty and brutality of The March to the Sea during the conflict.
His point was that war shouldn't be sanitized or, for that matter, romanticized.
Sherman believed in breaking the enemy through the hellish conditions of war.
He held to the belief that, in the long run, his strategy would shorten the conflict and save lives.
Turns out that General Sherman was right.
Sometimes war is essential to save lives. But that war must be a "just war."
It must be a war that ends quickly and decisively, with a clear victor and a clear path creating better conditions in its aftermath.
That is precisely the objective of the U.S.-Israel coordinated war against Iran.
Across Europe, throughout the United States and in the Muslim world, there has been both support and condemnation of the U.S.-Israel coordinated attack.
In the Mideast, there is more condemnation for the strike against Iran than praise.
However, many of those nations' leaders support the U.S.-Israel attack.
They just do so quietly.
These same leaders are worried about Iran, about its Shiite "bent" and its extremism.
They know the regime would be on steroids if Iran successfully transitioned into a nation with a nuclear arsenal.
That proof arrived when Iran launched rocket attacks on their neighbors.
The Iranian rocket attacks on their Gulf neighbors defy most logic – untll you think like an Iranian leader under attack by the West.
Many of Iran's neighbors feared Iran's continued power and their agenda.
They feared being dragged into the conflict on Iran's side.
That fear is born out of experience.
In the past, Iran has successfully framed every conflict as In the past, Iran has successfully framed every conflict as "Us Versus Them," as Muslims against the West.as Muslims against the West.
It should be noted that there are Shiite minorities in many Muslim countries that may very well create local uprisings in support of Iran.
That, too, is at the forefront of the minds of regional leaders. They understand their cities could become host to riots in support of Iran and against U.S./Israel hegemony.
Local Muslim critique of the attacks on Iran springs from another source, as well. Many who have criticized the attacks are plain and simply anti-Trump.
It's no secret that President Trump is seen with disdain in the Muslim world.
They both fear him and dislike his full-throttle support of Israel.
In this case, both Israel and the U.S. get support from Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli who famously wrote in his work "The Prince," "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Throughout the Muslim world there is a longstanding fear about Western cultural and political influence.
The fear is that Western influences will dilute or perhaps even neuter Islamic culture and society. This is particularly evident in the issue of women's roles and women's rights and education.
It was exactly that catalyst behind the Islamic Revolution that resulted in the ousting of The Shah of Iran, in 1979.
And yet, there are still significant reasons for Muslims nations that support the U.S. -Israel attack on Iran.
Primary among them is rivalry with Iran.
This is true especially for Saudi Arabia.
Many in the know are telling us that it was Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud who pushed President Trump very hard to attack Iran – and to attack sooner rather than later. Like other regional leaders, the Saudis are particularly concerned about the Iranian missile program.
Then too, despite their reluctance and suspicions, many Muslim regional leaders have, with time, become grateful for U.S. security assurances to protect them against Iran.
This split, criticism versus support, also runs through Europe and the U.S.
For those who simply hate Trump nothing he does could ever be positive.
The same is true about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
There is also a group that is simply skeptical of Trump's foreign policy agenda and view Trump’s policies as confrontational and aggressive.
This group is especially concerned because not once, but twice in the middle of negotiations, the United States and Israel attacked Iran.
First, in June of 2025 and now on Feb. 28, 2026. The point has been articulated by the UN.
It's on these grounds that they assert, incorrectly, I believe, that the attacks violated international law.
Many fear that what's happening now could escalate into larger conflict and even spill over into the streets of the US, Europe and the Muslim world.
Their biggest fear of all is that they do not see an end game.
They do not see a plan for after the regime falls or, always a possibility, that the regime hangs on. In the event of a power vacuum, Iran’s nuclear technology might fall into the hands of even more irresponsible, radical, anti-Western Iranians.
There are those in Europe and the U.S. who understand these fears.
They see the threat to US allies and even to the U.S. homeland with a nuclear Iran. They understand that negotiations have been spinning wheels, nothing more. They realize that Iran has been expanding their world reach and influence.
Often, we live in a bubble. I understand that there are valid reasons to object to the U.S.-Israel attack against Iran. But ultimately, it's a narrow global perspective.
Put another way, those who think this attack is wrong are wrong.
Iran is a danger to the region, Iran is a danger to the West, Iran is a danger to Israel and Iran is a danger to the United States.
That isn't rhetoric, it's real.
Micah Halpern is a political and foreign affairs commentator. Follow him on Twitter @MicahHalpern. Read more Micah Halpern Insider articles — Click Here Now.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.