Posts
President Donald Trump, from the gilded confines of Mar-a-Lago, oversaw the launching of American strikes against Iran, strikes carried out in concert with Israel, while speaking by phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, confirmed as much in the small hours: "President Trump monitored the situation overnight at Mar-a-Lago alongside members of his national security team," she posted on X. "The President spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu by phone."
One might pause here to note the sheer theatricality of it all: the former, and now again, president directing military action not from some drab Situation Room in Washington, but from a Florida estate better known for golf and galas. Yet there is something fitting in the spectacle. Trump has never pretended to be the discreet mandarin of foreign policy; he announces wars in video messages posted at 2:30 a.m., addressing not merely allies or adversaries but the Iranian people themselves.
In that Truth Social address, the president declared the strikes underway and turned directly to those he evidently regards as potential liberators: "Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take," he said.
"This will be, probably, your only chance for generations. For many years, you have asked for America's help, but you never got it. No President was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a President who is giving you what you want." Later he added that the "hour of your freedom is at hand."
The words are blunt, almost messianic in their confidence, and they carry an unmistakable message: this is not mere containment or calibrated pressure, but an invitation to regime change, delivered with the casual certainty of a man who believes history bends to resolve.
Former Navy SEAL Jack Carr, assessing the operation, pointed to the administration's "maximum pressure campaign" and the conspicuous absence of any "off-ramp" for the Iranian regime—a formulation that captures the essential gamble. There is no gentle exit ramp here; the road leads either to capitulation or escalation.
Prior to the strikes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had dutifully notified the so-called Gang of Eight, reaching seven of the eight congressional intelligence leaders. Administration officials insist the situation remains under close watch. Yet Democrats on that committee were swift to condemn the action.
Prior to the strikes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had dutifully notified the so-called Gang of Eight, reaching seven of the eight congressional intelligence leaders. Administration officials insist the situation remains under close watch. Yet Democrats on that committee were swift to condemn the action.
Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement that reads like a weary recitation of every cautionary tale from the post-9/11 era: "Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame," he wrote. "Military action in this region almost never ends well for the United States, and conflict with Iran can easily spiral and escalate in ways we cannot anticipate. It does not appear that Donald Trump has learned the lessons of history."
Himes is not wrong to invoke history; the Middle East has been a graveyard of grand American ambitions for decades. Yet we have to wonder whether the real lesson of history is not endless restraint in the face of a regime that has spent forty years promising Israel's destruction, sponsoring terror across the region, and pursuing nuclear capability under every possible guise.
Himes is not wrong to invoke history; the Middle East has been a graveyard of grand American ambitions for decades. Yet we have to wonder whether the real lesson of history is not endless restraint in the face of a regime that has spent forty years promising Israel's destruction, sponsoring terror across the region, and pursuing nuclear capability under every possible guise.
The strikes follow months of mounting tension, American action against Iran's nuclear sites as recently as June, followed by fitful negotiations that went nowhere. Trump had warned repeatedly: dismantle the nuclear infrastructure fully, or face consequences.
The operation, whatever its immediate tactical successes or failures, raises the oldest question in Western statecraft: when does one confront an implacable adversary, and when does one merely manage the threat?
The operation, whatever its immediate tactical successes or failures, raises the oldest question in Western statecraft: when does one confront an implacable adversary, and when does one merely manage the threat?
Critics see recklessness; supporters see belated clarity. Trump, characteristically, frames it in the starkest terms possible, not as a limited strike, but as a potential turning point for an oppressed people. Whether the Iranian people heed his call, or whether the regime survives to retaliate further, remains to be seen. What is clear is that the United States, under this president, has chosen action over the familiar pattern of drift, delay, and diplomatic fiction. In a region where illusions have cost countless lives, that choice, at the very least, cannot be dismissed as mere caprice.
