Iran

FIFA's hand-wringing about Iran's tournament status is the least important part of what's happening in the Gulf right now. Let's get our priorities straight.

Operation Epic Fury is ten days old. The battlefield picture is contested. But the strategic picture is becoming clearer — and it favors the United States.

Surgical strikes and diplomatic off-ramps have failed for forty years. The only path to regional stability runs through Tehran's government collapsing.

Mayor Pete served. Nobody's disputing that. But citing a 2014 deployment to criticize a 2026 military operation is the kind of move that only works on people who've never been around the military.

Iran just confirmed its new Supreme Leader took a hit in the first days of the operation. A wounded theocracy isn't just a military story — it's a story about the end of an era.

A Senate Republican says the Iran strikes send a signal to China and Russia. He's right — and the message is more consequential than the strike itself.

Every point the oil price climbs costs American small businesses real money. The Iran escalation is now an economic policy whether Washington calls it one or not.

Nancy Pelosi wants us to read the law. Fine. Let's start with the War Powers Resolution and what her party did to it in 2011.

When Adam Schiff condemned a president's Libya justification without knowing which president he was condemning, he exposed the hollow core of Democratic war powers outrage.

When a president announces a military strike date in advance, it's not a threat. It's a message. The question is who's receiving it.

Republican anxiety about a 'forever war' with Iran is legitimate. But anxiety alone doesn't produce strategy.

Americans are wary of another Middle East military commitment. That wariness is legitimate. It's also insufficient as a basis for grand strategy.

The U.S.-Israeli pressure campaign against Iran is drawing in regional actors and alarming foreign policy moderates. The moderates are wrong about why.

A top Democrat can't explain why Obama bombing Libya without congressional approval was fine, but Trump striking Iran is a constitutional crisis. The silence says everything.

House Democrats are scrambling to pass a war powers resolution on Iran. The politics are obvious, the constitutional argument is selective, and the strategy is pure theater.

While critics demand endless diplomatic theater, Trump's pressure campaign against Iran has achieved more in months than a decade of nuclear deals failed to produce.

Suddenly Democrats care about military readiness. The same party that gutted defense budgets for a decade is now fretting about munitions stockpiles.

The press frames congressional division on Iran as a crisis. It isn't. It's the constitutional system working as designed — and the executive branch is the beneficiary.

Words matter in military affairs. The distinction between a targeted strike and a war isn't a talking point — it's the difference between strategy and chaos.

The same party that cheered Obama's unauthorized Libya intervention is suddenly discovering the Constitution when Trump acts decisively against Iran.

Markets moved on the Iran news before the cable hosts finished their hot takes. Read the tape. It tells a cleaner story than the Senate floor.

The House returned to Washington with five unanswered questions about Iran. The real scandal is that Congress is the last body capable of answering any of them.

Democrats refused to fund DHS even as Iran struck. The party that claims to care about national security just showed you their hand.

Both parties are calculating their political exposure from the Iran conflict. Neither is asking the question that actually matters: are we fighting for something real?

When senators from your own party start asking hard questions about mission scope and exit strategy, a president should listen. Not comply — but listen.

Every foreign policy establishment figure says Trump needs a clear Iran strategy. They're wrong. The ambiguity is the strategy.

American bombs are falling on Iranian soil. The question isn't whether this was justified — it was. The question is whether Washington has a day-two plan.

The UK won't join offensive operations against Iran but will let American planes use British bases to do it. That's not a principled stand. That's a country trying to have it both ways.

Iran took American hostages in 1979 and hasn't stopped attacking us since. We've responded with diplomatic notes and strongly-worded statements. That ends now — or the attacks won't.

Journalists who slept through Obama's Libya campaign are suddenly constitutional scholars now that Trump struck Iran. The timing is revealing.

Forty years of expert-approved half-measures gave us a nuclear-threshold Iran. Trump took a sword to the problem. The experts are mad he didn't use a scalpel.

The man who spent two decades demanding regime change in Iran is now nitpicking the execution. That tells you everything about the gap between Washington's talkers and its doers.

Iran has been at war with America for 47 years. Only now is America fighting back. Darla Jean Pickett says what too many Christians are afraid to say out loud.

A sustained conflict with Iran would stress America's precision munitions inventory in ways that haven't been publicly acknowledged. The strategic gap between our ambitions and our stockpiles is real.

They tried to mothball the B-1 for years. Then Operation Epic Fury happened, and three Lancers flew nonstop from the continental US to punch holes in Iran's missile caves.

The House defeated the war powers resolution on Iran. Another bipartisan surrender of congressional authority dressed up as national security prudence.

The President just told every regime on Earth exactly how long he's willing to sustain combat operations to get what he wants. That's not recklessness. That's a message.

Striking Iran isn't the question anymore. The question is whether Washington has thought through what happens the morning after the bombs drop.