Aletho News

How Objectivists Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Zionist Regime Change Wars

By Jose Alberto Nino – Occidental Observer – February 6, 2026

In 1964, Ayn Rand told Playboy magazine that any free nation had the moral right to invade Soviet Russia or Cuba. “Correct. A dictatorship — a country that violates the rights of its own citizens — is an outlaw and can claim no rights.” Instead, she preferred waging economic warfare against these rogue governments. “I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else, economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia, and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.”

Six decades later, her disciples are advocates of a ground invasion of Iran, crushing Palestinian society, and not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons to bring the Islamic Republic of Iran to heel. A secular ideology devoted to laissez faire capitalism now sounds indistinguishable from the most hawkish neoconservatives and aligns with religious nationalist movements in Israel that openly advocate territorial expansion and Palestinian expulsion.

Rand, who is of Russian Jewish extraction, set the tone in her 1979 appearance on the Phil Donahue Show. “If you mean whose side should we be on, Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation,” Rand stated.

She doubled down. “The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”

Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s designated heir and also of Russian Jewish extraction, continued his predecessor’s hawkish legacy. published a full page advertisement in The New York Times on October 2, 2001. “Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.”

He identified Iran as the central threat. “The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran.” Iran “is the most active state sponsor of terrorism, training and arming groups from all over the Mideast.” His analogy was stark. “What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad mongers only by taking out Iran.”

Peikoff demanded total war to address the issue of Iran. “Eliminating Iran’s terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation.”

The potential for mass civilian casualties was of no concern to Peikoff, who firmly believed that only full-fledged military force could put Iran in its place. “A proper war in self-defense is one fought without self-crippling restrictions placed on our commanders in the field. It must be fought with the most effective weapons we possess [a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld refused, correctly, to rule out nuclear weapons]. And it must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire.”

In a 2006 podcast, Peikoff advocated using nuclear weapons against Iran if necessary. On Israel and Palestine, Peikoff’s 1996 essay dismissed Palestinian territorial claims entirely. “Land was not stolen from the nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain, any more than the early Americans stole this country from the primitive, warring Indians.” He called land for peace “a repugnant formula for Israel’s self-immolation.”

Yaron Brook, the current Ayn Rand Institute board chairman, extended these radical Zionist principles to the 21st century. After October 7, 2023, he called for Hamas’s total destruction. “Israel must destroy Hamas, everything about it. Its political leaders, wherever they are hiding must be assassinated, their entire military infrastructure destroyed, its supporters, brought to their knees.”

At a January 2024 event, Brook argued Israel should see “the Palestinian population at large as an enemy” and called for “a fundamental shift in Palestinian culture.” Such a scenario can only be achievable when Palestinians “have lost every ounce of hope that they can beat Israel.”

Brook would not allow aid, electricity, or internet into Gaza. He argued Israel shows excessive restraint despite death tolls exceeding 70,000, which includes at least 20,000 children. “So many Israeli soldiers are dying on the field because Israel refrains from defending them and places the lives of civilians on the other side as more valuable than its own soldiers: He described Gaza as “a primitive society” requiring fundamental transformation like Germany and Japan after World War II.

On Iran, Brook advocated for regime change as the only solution to this geopolitical dilemma. “Israel cannot take out the Iranian nuclear facility. So what is the only other way to stop the Iranians from getting a bomb? The only other way is regime change.” He specified acceptable outcomes for Israel in a confrontation against Iran. “It has to go for an internal revolution in Iran taking out the current mullahs, whether with more moderates who are committed to doing away with the nuclear program or whether it’s all out, you know, liberal democracy-type revolution but or whether it’s the shah coming back. Right the son of the shah, but it has to be regime change.”

Objectivists are a quirky bunch when it comes to their ideology, which may appear critical of mainstream political currents. Brook’s 2007 essay “Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy” condemned neoconservatives for advocating democracy promotion rather than rational self-interest. Yet on Israel and Iran, Objectivists and neoconservatives find common ground. Both support unlimited Israeli military action, Iranian regime change, opposition to Palestinian statehood, and framing the conflict as civilization versus barbarism.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently declared “absolute” support for Greater Israel, Jewish sovereignty from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. Such a Jewish supremacist vision is suffused with religious rhetoric. At first glance, one would think that Objectivism’s atheistic nature would dismiss such religious appeals. But yet again, the Ayn Rand Institute’s positions end up aligning with the Greater Israel framework through the rejection of Palestinian statehood and framing Palestinian aspirations as illegitimate.

Netanyahu’s far-right allies, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”), make no secret of their top goal: Israeli control over Palestinian lands, including Gaza resettlement, West Bank annexation, and the expulsion of Arabs, echoing Rabbi Meir Kahane’s calls for the imposition Jewish law and Arab removal.

Many observers scratch their heads at this odd alliance between Objectivism—an atheistic, free-market creed that Ayn Rand branded as anti-mystical—and religious Zionists appealing to biblical land promises. But when one grasps the Jewish question and how Jews maneuver politically across divides, it all snaps into focus: the Jewish racial will to power drives Jews of all political stripes. Objectivists and religious Zionists clash on faith and domestic policy yet unite to subjugate gentiles like Palestinians and seize their territory.

Objectivism preaches against initiating force and upholds individual rights, yet Leonard Peikoff pushes for invading Iran and Yaron Brook calls for pulverizing Palestinian society to kill their hope. Strip away the lofty appeals to reason and rights, and Objectivism emerges as intellectual camouflage for Jewish racial dominance—a political vehicle that harmonizes Rand’s heirs with Smotrich’s zealots, prioritizing gentile dispossession over any philosophical consistency.

February 6, 2026 - Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism