𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆, 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍!
A Word of Caution about War in Iran
⚠️ 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆, 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍! ⚠️
Look, none of us wanted—or wants—Iran to have nuclear weapons, or to see Free World interests in the Middle East threatened or undermined. Yesterday’s strike appears to have “neutralized” Iran’s nuclear capability with minimal loss of life, and that might seem, at first glance, like a net positive.
But before we hang the “Mission Accomplished” banner, let’s pause.
We have it from Donald J. Trump—who for some is the most reliable source—the man who once warned that immigrants were “eating the dogs, eating the cats,” promised COVID would “disappear like a miracle,” and claimed he “won the election by a lot.” Now he insists:
➤ “Iran is weeks away from a nuclear weapon” — with no intel to back it. ➤ “Their facilities have been completely and totally obliterated” — with no evidence offered. ➤ “There were no civilian deaths” — despite no public reports, independent or otherwise. ➤ “They surrendered” — while Tehran was literally launching missiles.
Congress was blindsided. Key members from both parties said they received no advance notice, no classified briefing, no consultation. Even some of Trump’s usual allies were left scrambling to respond after the fact. Intelligence officials were reportedly caught off guard. NATO partners? In the dark. The State Department? Playing catch-up.
This isn’t strategy. It’s spectacle.
Trump doesn’t consult—he declares. He doesn’t listen to intelligence briefings—he overrides them. He doesn’t build consensus—he isolates himself and barrels forward, trusting only the sound of his own applause. And when things go sideways? He spins, gaslights, changes the subject, or just walks away.
We’ve seen this before: deny, deflect, declare victory—and dare anyone to catch up. But governance isn’t a solo act. And foreign policy isn’t a reality show cliffhanger.
In moments like this, the question isn’t just “What did we hit?” It’s: “Who made the call? With whose counsel? And what’s the actual strategy?” Because—let’s be honest—had he struck Tehran, it wouldn’t have been a “statement.” It would’ve been a war crime.
And that’s what makes this all so unnerving: this was not the product of deliberation, of coalition-building, or even of steady hands at the wheel. It was a one-man show—a decision born in the echo chamber of a man who has always seen impulse as strategy, loyalty as performance, and consequences as someone else’s problem.
This is what governing looks like when national security is filtered through ego, not expertise. When photo ops replace process. When the spotlight becomes the objective.
We weren’t led into this moment by clarity or consensus—we were pulled toward it by a man who confuses dominance with diplomacy, and unpredictability with power.
In the end, this isn’t just about one strike or one country—it’s about whether we continue letting one man treat the presidency like a one-man band. Decisions of war and peace demand more than ego and impulse; they require process, wisdom, and humility. America doesn’t need a solo act. It needs a commander-in-chief who can play a team game—one who listens, collaborates, and takes responsibility.
By way of reminder: war is unpredictable. And some things, once broken, can’t be fixed.
That said, the men and women who carried out this mission—who executed it professionally, under intense pressure—deserve acknowledgment. They didn’t make the decision, but they did their duty with the precision and discipline expected of our professional military serving under lawful civilian authority. We can commend their preparedness and execution without endorsing the stagecraft behind it.