Confronting the Iranian Threat: 

A Clear-Eyed Assessment of America’s Post-1979 Policy Toward Iran and the Case for Strategic Strength

By Tom Donelson and George Landrith

Executive Summary:

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has waged an undeclared war against the United States and its allies, using terrorism, proxy militias, cyber operations, and nuclear brinkmanship. Despite this persistent aggression, successive U.S. administrations—particularly under Barack Obama and Joe Biden—have sought accommodation rather than confrontation, providing Iran with financial windfalls and diplomatic cover that have fueled its regional campaigns of violence.

By contrast, President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy—grounded in economic sanctions, targeted military action, and the forging of regional alliances—reversed Iran’s momentum. The killing of Qassem Soleimani, the withdrawal from the JCPOA, and the Abraham Accords restored American deterrence and reshaped the Middle East’s balance of power without dragging the U.S. into new wars.

In 2025, with Iran racing toward nuclear breakout, Trump authorized targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. These actions, far from reckless, were constitutionally justified, strategically necessary, and ultimately stabilizing. They bought time, degraded Iran’s capabilities, and helped create the conditions for regional de-escalation.

This paper argues that peace is not achieved through appeasement, but through resolve. Trump’s foreign policy—realist, principled, and forceful—offers the only credible model for containing Iran and protecting U.S. interests in a dangerous world.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: A War We Didn’t Recognize
2. Iran’s Four-Decade War on America and Its Allies
3. The Obama-Biden Years: Appeasement and Enablement
4. The Trump Doctrine: Peace Through Strength
5. Biden’s Reversal: Reinvigorating a Terror State
6. Recent Developments: Strikes and Ceasefire Prospects
7. On the Constitutional Authority of the President to Use Force
8. Strategic Lessons and the Way Forward
9. Conclusion: The Choice Between War and Peace Is a Choice Between Weakness and Resolve

I.  Introduction: A War We Didn’t Recognize

We have been at war with Iran since 1979, although most Americans have not realized it. From the moment Iranian revolutionaries seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, the Islamic Republic declared its enmity toward the United States and its allies. What followed was not a traditional war with armies on defined battlefields, but a sustained campaign of proxy violence, terror attacks, cyber warfare, and global destabilization orchestrated from Tehran.

Over four decades, Iran has armed, trained, and funded terrorist groups across the Middle East—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. These proxies have killed American soldiers, diplomats, civilians, and our allies. Iran has also violently suppressed its own people, imprisoned dissidents, executed political opponents, and pursued nuclear weapons while chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

Despite this unrelenting aggression, many U.S. leaders, particularly in Democratic administrations, have treated Iran as a misunderstood adversary rather than what it plainly is: a rogue regime with global ambitions rooted in religious extremism and anti-Western ideology.

This white paper is a sober assessment of Iran’s four-decade war on America, the failures of appeasement under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the success of Donald Trump’s maximum pressure strategy, and the path forward based on realism, deterrence, and national interest.

II.  Iran’s Four-Decade War on America and Its Allies

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has used terrorism, proxy militias, and asymmetric warfare as core instruments of state policy. The regime’s goal has never been merely survival—it has sought regional hegemony and the destruction of Israel and the United States. What follows is a non-exhaustive but representative timeline of Iranian aggression.

1979–1981: The Hostage Crisis

The war began with the Iranian seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days in a direct violation of international law. This brazen act set the tone for Tehran’s foreign policy—ideologically driven, contemptuous of the West, and unapologetically lawless.

1980s: Terrorism in Lebanon and Beyond

In the early 1980s, Iran helped form and fund Hezbollah in Lebanon. The group quickly became a key proxy and was responsible for devastating attacks against Americans:

• April 1983: Hezbollah bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people, including 17 Americans.
• October 1983: A suicide truck bomb destroyed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American servicemen—at that time, the worst single-day loss of U.S. Marines since World War II.
• 1984: Another bombing struck the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24.
• 1985: Hezbollah hijacked TWA Flight 847, murdered U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, and held passengers hostage for 17 days.

1990s: Escalation Abroad

• 1996: The IRGC-supported group Hezbollah al-Hejaz conducted the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. Air Force personnel and injuring nearly 500 others. A U.S. federal court later held Iran responsible for the attack.

2000s: Ties to al-Qaeda and Global Terrorism

Although Iran is a Shiite regime, it has supported Sunni terrorist organizations when strategically useful. U.S. courts have found that:

• Iran materially supported al-Qaeda in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people.
• Iran aided operatives involved in the 2000 USS Cole bombing (17 U.S. sailors killed).
• Iran helped facilitate travel for al-Qaeda terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks, allowing them to cross its borders without passports.

2003–2011: U.S. Troops Targeted in Iraq

During the Iraq War, Iran-backed militias—including Kata’ib Hezbollah and the Badr Corps—waged war on U.S. and coalition forces. These militias used EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) and IEDs supplied by Iran. Hundreds of American troops were killed or maimed by Iranian-designed weapons.

2019–2020: Soleimani, Embassy Attacks, and Missile Retaliation

• December 2019: Kata’ib Hezbollah fired rockets at the K-1 base in Kirkuk, killing a U.S. contractor and injuring American personnel.
• December 31, 2019: Iranian-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
• January 3, 2020: In response, the Trump administration authorized the killing of Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force, in a drone strike in Baghdad.
• January 8, 2020: Iran retaliated by firing ballistic missiles at Ain al-Asad and Erbil airbases, injuring at least 110 U.S. troops.

2023–2024: Proxy Escalation Across the Region

From late 2023 through 2024, Iran’s proxies launched over 170 drone, missile, and rocket attacks on U.S. positions in Iraq and Syria:

• October 2023: Drone strike on al-Tanf base, injuring 20 U.S. and allied personnel.
• November 2023: Missile strike on al-Asad airbase injured 8 coalition troops.
• January 2024: Rocket barrage caused multiple injuries and increased defensive deployments.

Houthis and Maritime Attacks

Iran’s proxy in Yemen, the Houthis, launched more than 170 attacks on shipping and naval assets in the Red Sea between late 2023 and early 2025:

• January 15, 2024: A Houthi missile struck the U.S.-owned M/V Gibraltar Eagle, injuring crew.
• Multiple U.S. Navy ships—USS Carney, USS Laboon, among others—intercepted Houthi missiles or drones in active combat zones.

Assassination and Kidnapping Plots

Iran has also targeted individuals on U.S. soil:

• 2021: U.S. authorities foiled a plot to kidnap Masih Alinejad, an Iranian-American journalist.
• 2022: DOJ charged an IRGC agent with plotting to assassinate John Bolton; similar threats were made against Mike Pompeo and other Trump-era officials.

2025: Renewed Attacks After Nuclear Facility Strikes

Following U.S. and Israeli operations against Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025, Iran’s militias resumed attacks on U.S. assets, particularly in Iraq and Syria. The Houthis further escalated maritime attacks. These responses confirmed Iran’s continued commitment to proxy warfare and regional destabilization.

III.  The Obama-Biden Years: Appeasement and Enablement

While Iran’s aggression remained constant, the U.S. posture toward Tehran shifted dramatically during the Obama administration. Rather than holding Iran accountable, the Obama-Biden foreign policy establishment sought to integrate the regime into the international community through engagement and economic incentives—an approach that proved naive, counterproductive, and dangerous.

The JCPOA: A Deal That Empowered the Enemy

In 2015, President Obama finalized the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, along with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China. Heralded by supporters as a historic achievement to prevent Iranian nuclear proliferation, the agreement was riddled with weaknesses:

• Sunset clauses guaranteed that key nuclear restrictions would expire within 10–15 years.
• The deal excluded Iran’s ballistic missile program, a critical delivery system for nuclear weapons.
• Iran was allowed to self-inspect suspected military sites under certain conditions.
• Iran received a $150 billion windfall in unfrozen assets and relief from crippling sanctions.
• The U.S. sent Iran pallets of cash in foreign currency totaling $1.7 billion, allegedly to settle a pre-revolution arms deal.

Instead of moderating Iran’s behavior, the JCPOA funded its terror machine. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Assad’s regime in Syria all benefited. Iran’s regional influence surged, and its anti-American, anti-Israel activities increased—not decreased.

As even critics within the Obama administration later acknowledged, Iran’s leaders never intended to become a “normal” state. They simply took the cash and bought more missiles, proxies, and centrifuges.

Biden’s Continuation of a Failed Policy

As vice president, Joe Biden had supported the JCPOA. As president, he tried to revive it—even after Iran repeatedly violated the agreement, enriched uranium beyond allowed thresholds, and obstructed international inspectors.

In practice, Biden’s policies resembled Obama’s, but with fewer results:

• He eased enforcement of oil sanctions, allowing Iran to profit from black-market sales.
• His administration released or unfroze billions in Iranian assets, including a $6 billion transfer in 2023 for a hostage swap.
• Despite Iranian attacks on U.S. troops and allies, Biden refused to hold Tehran accountable militarily.

The consequences were immediate and predictable:

• Iranian proxies grew bolder in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Yemen.
• Hamas launched mass rocket attacks against Israel.
• Hezbollah threatened war from Lebanon.
• The Houthis disrupted global trade routes in the Red Sea.
• Iran raced toward weapons-grade uranium enrichment, shrinking its “breakout time” to mere weeks.

Biden’s policy—grounded in the illusion that engagement could change the nature of the regime—reinvigorated Iran’s terror state. The U.S. signaled weakness, and Iran responded with escalation.

IV.  The Trump Doctrine:  Peace Through Strength

In sharp contrast to the appeasement and strategic wishful thinking of the Obama-Biden years, President Donald J. Trump adopted a realist, America First foreign policy that confronted Iran with clarity, courage, and consequences. Trump understood that the Iranian regime respects only power—and that attempts to negotiate from a position of weakness only embolden tyrants.

Withdrawal from the JCPOA

In May 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA. He rightly called it a “horrible, one-sided deal that should never, ever have been made.” This decision reasserted U.S. sovereignty and credibility, and it ended the charade that Tehran was a good-faith negotiating partner.

Trump immediately reimposed all prior sanctions and initiated what became known as the maximum pressure campaign, aimed at crushing the regime’s ability to fund terror and develop nuclear weapons.

The Maximum Pressure Strategy

Trump’s sanctions targeted:

• Iran’s Central Bank
• Petrochemical and energy sectors
• Shipping, aviation, and metals
• Key individuals in the IRGC and Quds Force

The result: Iran’s economy contracted by nearly 10%, oil exports plummeted by over 75%, and the regime lost tens of billions in annual revenues. These funds had previously been used to fund Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other militias.

As Victor Davis Hanson noted, Trump’s approach wasn’t isolationist or reckless—it was populist and nationalist, rooted in a cost-benefit analysis of U.S. interests. He wasn’t interested in remaking the Middle East but in protecting Americans and forcing adversaries to respect U.S. power.

The Killing of Qassem Soleimani

On January 3, 2020, President Trump authorized the targeted strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, commander of the IRGC-Quds Force. Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops and had orchestrated attacks across the region for decades.

His death:

• Disrupted Iran’s command structure abroad.
• Sent a clear deterrent signal to Iran and other adversaries.
• Was carried out with precision, without drawing the U.S. into a new war.

Contrary to media hysteria, the strike prevented future attacks rather than provoking new ones. Iran’s immediate response—a missile strike on U.S. bases that caused injuries but no deaths—was largely performative and carefully calibrated to avoid U.S. retaliation.

The Abraham Accords

While applying pressure to Iran, Trump also pursued peace elsewhere. The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. This historic achievement:

• United moderate Sunni states and Israel in a regional alliance against Iran.
• Demonstrated that peace did not require surrender to Tehran or endless conflict with Israel.
• Achieved what decades of State Department orthodoxy and appeasement had failed to do.

It was a triumph of realism over ideology—and it occurred without a single U.S. troop being deployed or a shot being fired.

A Doctrinal Return to Strategic Clarity

Trump’s approach mirrored the Weinberger Doctrine, formulated after the Vietnam War:

1. Use force only when vital national interests are at stake.
2. Use overwhelming force and clear objectives.
3. Commit fully or not at all.
4. Pursue diplomatic solutions first.
5. Reassess and adapt.
6. Ensure public support.

Trump’s Iran policy met these standards. He avoided endless wars, kept American troops safe, supported allies, and used diplomacy backed by strength. In short, he restored deterrence.

V.  Biden’s Reversal: Reinvigorating a Terror State

In one of the most dangerous foreign policy reversals in modern American history, President Joe Biden dismantled the Trump-era maximum pressure campaign against Iran. Instead of building on a position of strength, the Biden administration reverted to the failed policies of appeasement, naively attempting to resuscitate the JCPOA and normalize relations with Tehran.

The results were swift and dire: Iran resumed its regional aggression, escalated attacks through proxies, and advanced its nuclear program to dangerous levels.

Easing of Sanctions and Economic Windfalls

Upon taking office, Biden signaled an eagerness to return to the JCPOA—even as Iran openly violated the deal’s provisions. Though formal re-entry was never achieved, Biden’s administration deliberately relaxed sanctions enforcement, allowing Iran to significantly increase oil sales, particularly to China.

This flood of revenue—estimated in the tens of billions of dollars—revitalized Iran’s military, subsidized its terrorist proxies, and undercut U.S. leverage. At a time when Iran should have been weakened, Biden strengthened it.

In 2023, the administration agreed to release $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets in exchange for the return of five American hostages. While the deal was portrayed as a humanitarian gesture, it set a dangerous precedent: rewarding hostage-taking with billions in ransom.

Strategic Passivity Amid Escalation

Even as Iranian-backed militias launched over 170 attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria between 2023 and 2024, Biden’s military response was restrained and delayed. American deterrence began to crumble.

At the same time, the Houthis escalated their maritime campaign in the Red Sea, targeting international shipping and directly threatening U.S. naval vessels. The administration’s response was largely reactive, consisting of limited defensive strikes rather than a cohesive strategy to eliminate the threat.

The failure to respond forcefully emboldened Iran’s proxies and endangered American and allied lives.

Nuclear Breakout and IAEA Violations

Perhaps most troublingly, Iran raced toward nuclear weapons capability under Biden’s watch. By 2024, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran had enriched uranium to near weapons-grade purity—far beyond the JCPOA’s limits.

Biden’s response? Renewed calls for negotiations.

Even as the regime refused to cooperate with inspectors, barred access to sites, and enriched uranium beyond 60%, the administration clung to the illusion that diplomacy alone could resolve the crisis. In doing so, it allowed Iran to shrink its nuclear breakout time to weeks—placing the region and the world at risk.

Undermining U.S. Credibility

While Iran rearmed and threatened regional war, the Biden administration signaled weakness:

• It slow-walked military responses.
• It engaged in public criticism of Israel while placating Iran.
• It allowed Iran to believe it could act with impunity.

This erosion of American deterrence undermined not only security in the Middle East, but also U.S. credibility worldwide—from Eastern Europe to the Indo-Pacific.

VI. Recent Developments: Strikes and Ceasefire Prospects

By early 2025, it had become clear that Iran was approaching the nuclear threshold. Intelligence reports indicated that Iran had stockpiled enriched uranium at levels perilously close to weapons-grade purity and had begun testing advanced centrifuge designs. The regime’s escalation—combined with its persistent attacks on U.S. and Israeli interests through proxies—reached a tipping point.

In response, both the United States and Israel launched a series of coordinated strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Though not publicly acknowledged in full detail, the attacks involved a combination of cyber warfare, sabotage, air strikes, and covert operations targeting Iran’s most sensitive nuclear sites, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

Objectives and Outcomes

The primary goals of these strikes were to:

1. Destroy key centrifuge facilities and uranium enrichment capabilities.
2. Delay Iran’s ability to achieve nuclear breakout.
3. Deter further Iranian escalation or proxy aggression.
4. Reassert red lines after years of diplomatic ambiguity.

Initial assessments indicate that the strikes succeeded in crippling Iran’s nuclear timeline and forced Tehran to recalibrate. The damage to physical infrastructure, combined with internal unrest and mounting economic pressures, limited Iran’s options for escalation.

Proxy Reaction and Containment

In the aftermath of the strikes, Iranian proxies—particularly in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen—increased attacks on U.S. and allied positions, attempting to retaliate without triggering a full-scale war. These attacks included:

• Rocket and drone strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq.
• Maritime drone assaults in the Red Sea by Houthi forces.
• Renewed threats from Hezbollah along Israel’s northern border.

However, the U.S. response was swift and calibrated, focusing on counterforce operations rather than full-scale invasions. The emphasis remained on destroying capabilities, not occupying territory—a key feature of the Trump-era military philosophy.

Signs of Ceasefire and De-Escalation

Ironically, the bold strikes—while escalating tensions in the short term—helped create the conditions for de-escalation. Iran found itself:

• Militarily degraded.
• Economically strained.
• Facing widespread domestic dissent.
• Increasingly isolated diplomatically.

By mid-2025, quiet diplomatic channels began to open between regional powers seeking to stabilize Yemen, reduce Houthi activity, and prevent a broader war. Early signs of progress included:

• Provisional ceasefire talks in Yemen.
• Reduced Houthi attacks on shipping.
• Increased international inspections in Iranian nuclear sites—under pressure, not invitation.

These developments confirmed a central truth of international relations: peace is not achieved through appeasement, but through the assertive use of force when justified and the strategic application of leverage.

VII. On the Constitutional Authority of the President to Use Force

In the wake of President Trump’s 2025 strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, some political opponents claimed that the action was unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment. These criticisms were not only disingenuous—they were historically and legally absurd.

The Commander-in-Chief Clause

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution designates the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. This role grants the President the authority to direct military operations, respond to imminent threats, and take action to defend U.S. interests—without first obtaining congressional approval for every tactical decision.

While the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to “declare war,” this has never been interpreted as requiring prior approval for every military engagement or strike. Historically, U.S. Presidents have used military force hundreds of times without formal declarations of war—from Jefferson’s action against the Barbary Pirates to modern-day precision strikes against terrorist threats.

Precedent: Obama, Biden, and Presidential Force

President Barack Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone, according to Pentagon data. These operations included airstrikes in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan—without formal declarations of war and often without prior congressional authorization. Yet no serious legal scholar or Democratic leader proposed impeaching Obama for these actions.

Similarly, President Joe Biden has ordered airstrikes in Syria and Iraq during his term, targeting Iranian-backed militias following attacks on U.S. forces. Again, no impeachment was discussed, because Biden, like all modern presidents, exercised his lawful authority as commander in chief.

Trump’s Actions: Lawful, Targeted, and Justified

President Trump’s 2025 strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities followed the same legal and constitutional framework:

• The action was targeted and limited, designed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
• It was conducted in defense of U.S. interests and international security.
• The President informed Congress afterward, in accordance with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

To suggest that such action constitutes an impeachable offense is not just partisan—it reflects a basic misunderstanding of constitutional governance. As one commentator observed, “This argument is so weak that even a civics student would know better.”

Selective Outrage and Political Hypocrisy

That some Democrats condemned Trump’s strikes as impeachable, while defending or ignoring similar (and often broader) use of force by Obama and Biden, reveals a dangerous double standard. It suggests that, for many, principle matters less than politics.

Fortunately, not all Democrats joined the chorus of hysteria. A handful praised Trump’s action as “strong” or “decisive,” recognizing that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran serves not just Republicans or conservatives—but the entire free world.

VIII. Strategic Lessons and the Way Forward

Four decades of American engagement with Iran have revealed a hard but essential truth: the Islamic Republic does not want coexistence—it wants dominance. Its regime views diplomacy not as a path to peace, but as a tactic to buy time, extract concessions, and continue its revolution.

American policy must therefore be grounded not in wishful thinking, but in strategic clarity and moral realism. The experience of the Obama-Biden and Trump administrations provides a stark contrast and a valuable roadmap.

Lesson 1: Appeasement Fails

Attempts to “moderate” Iran through economic incentives, diplomatic engagement, or non-binding agreements have repeatedly failed. The JCPOA and similar initiatives empowered Iran without changing its behavior. The regime simply used Western funds to advance its goals: supporting terrorism, repressing its own people, and developing nuclear weapons.

Any future policy must reject the illusion that Iran will reform itself if simply shown goodwill. Appeasement emboldens tyrants.

Lesson 2: Pressure Works

President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign—rooted in sanctions, isolation, and targeted force—weakened Iran more effectively than any policy since the revolution. It disrupted their funding networks, limited their ability to wage proxy wars, and restored deterrence.

The killing of Qassem Soleimani demonstrated that red lines would be enforced. The Abraham Accords built a regional alliance without conceding to Iran. Strength, not surrender, opened doors to peace.

Lesson 3: Regime Change Must Come from Within

While some argue that the U.S. should seek to overthrow the Iranian regime, President Trump recognized that regime change cannot be imposed by foreign armies. The best path forward lies in:

• Supporting dissident voices inside Iran.
• Amplifying the regime’s human rights abuses on the world stage.
• Maintaining economic and diplomatic pressure to expose the regime’s failure.
• Strengthening regional allies to contain Iran’s influence.

The Iranian people—not the U.S. military—must be the agents of their own liberation. Our job is to create the conditions in which that transformation can take place.

Lesson 4: The Role of Strategic Doctrine

As President Trump’s policies demonstrated, the Weinberger Doctrine remains a valuable framework for modern American engagement:

1. Act only when vital national interests are at stake.
2. Use overwhelming force with clear objectives.
3. Avoid half-measures and mission creep.
4. Exhaust diplomacy—but don’t rely on it blindly.
5. Continually reassess and adapt.
6. Seek public support for any sustained operation.

This doctrine offers America First foreign policy advocates a path to avoid both reckless entanglements and dangerous passivity.

IX.  Conclusion: The Choice Between War and Peace Is a Choice Between Weakness and Resolve

Critics of President Trump frequently warned that his strong stance on Iran would lead to World War III. They accused him of recklessness, of warmongering, of triggering global instability. Yet the facts speak for themselves: during his presidency, there were no new wars. Iran was weakened, not emboldened. U.S. troops were safer, not more endangered. Peace, not war, was the fruit of strategic strength.

Contrast this with the Obama-Biden years, when appeasement emboldened terrorists, Iran advanced its nuclear program, and American deterrence collapsed. From the JCPOA to the unreciprocated diplomacy of Biden’s first term, the lesson was repeated: diplomacy without leverage invites disaster.

The Trump Doctrine worked not because it was ideological, but because it was grounded in realism, history, and common sense. It recognized that Iran’s regime cannot be reformed with cash, cannot be trusted with nuclear capabilities, and cannot be reasoned into abandoning its core mission of exporting radicalism and terror.

The strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025—a lawful, justified, and necessary action—was not an act of war. It was an act of prevention. It delayed nuclear breakout. It reestablished red lines. And, importantly, it helped set the conditions for regional de-escalation and possible ceasefires. As in previous chapters of American history, strength brought stability.

For all the criticism, President Trump’s Iran policy offers a case study in successful statecraft:

• Clear objectives
• Measured use of force
• Economic pressure over military occupation
• Respect for American lives and interests first

Peace does not come from hoping the enemy will change. It comes from ensuring they have no choice.

If America is to protect its people, its allies, and its future, it must return to this clarity of purpose. A nuclear Iran is not inevitable. Terrorism is not unstoppable. Appeasement is not diplomacy. And weakness is not peace.

America must once again lead—not with apologies or concessions, but with strength, resolve, and moral clarity.