War is, and always has been, a brutal and tragic reality. There is no disputing the human cost. What remains open for debate, however, is whether such conflict is, at times, necessary to preserve national security and global stability.

I would argue that a strong stance against Iran is crucial for U.S. national security. President Trump and his advisors view Iran as a major threat due to its nuclear ambitions, support for terrorism, and hostile rhetoric towards the U.S. and its allies. President Trump made numerous attempts to solve the issue diplomatically, contrary to what you might hear on CNN and other so-called mainstream media.

I believe that military action is unfortunate but necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Military leaders argue that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Middle East and pose a direct threat to Israel and U.S. interests in the region. The sad reality is that military action leads to loss of life on all sides. It is important to acknowledge the human toll of any military engagement. Lives are lost, families are impacted, and the consequences are felt for generations. Yet, strength and resolve can also prevent prolonged conflict. President Trump has consistently emphasized the value of human life and has worked to reduce American involvement in protracted wars. His foreign policy approach reflects a belief that peace is best secured through strength, not appeasement.

Iran is and has been a sponsor of various terrorist groups (such as Hezbollah and Hamas). Addressing Iran militarily could limit its ability to fund and support these groups, thereby reducing terrorism. Both, Obama and the Autopen simply wanted to buy their way out of war with Iran. I would argue that the money given to Iran was used to create the weapons we are now at war with.

Supporting allies in the region, particularly Israel, is a strong motivator for conservatives. A proactive military stance can reassure allies and deter adversaries, reinforcing U.S. commitments. Decisive military action can deter other hostile actions by Iran, such as cyber-attacks or maritime aggression in the Strait of Hormuz.

Intervention could lead to a change in the Iranian regime, potentially resulting in a more democratic and pro-Western government. There is also the broader question of the Iranian people themselves. Many have lived under an oppressive regime for decades, deprived of basic freedoms. While regime change is never guaranteed, increased pressure on the current government could create conditions for a more open and representative system that aligns more closely with the values of liberty and self-determination.

Opinions vary significantly, even within conservative circles, depending on the specific context and developments in Iran. However, the sudden concern by liberals for the use of force, the monetary expenditures, and the total disregard for the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran would be laughable if it weren’t so sickening. Every liberal President over the last 50 years argued that a nuclear-armed Iran could and would be a threat to the United States and our allies. If nothing else, this war has proven exactly that.