Unsurprisingly, early criticism has emerged from some quarters within President Trump’s base of supporters regarding his decision to authorize massive regime-change military strikes on Iran.
Such opposition is natural given Trump’s commitment to peace and his vocal “America First” policy orientation—a core principle that includes ending wars and prioritizing domestic initiatives.
These critics must better appreciate that sometimes circumstances and opportunities arise requiring a change in course.
What differentiates the United States from most adversaries is our government’s desire for pragmatism and flexibility, rather than ideological rigidity.
Additionally, with Iran unwilling to negotiate an agreement to cease missile and nuclear bomb production, President Trump deemed it a lethal threat to U.S. national security. When negotiations failed, he took action that he believed was entirely consistent with putting America first.
For the last 43 years, the radical Shia Islamic regime in Iran has been at war with the United States, beginning with the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut that killed 63, and six months later the U.S. Marines Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 Marines.
Total U.S. casualties from Iran-linked forces during this period have exceeded 1,200.
However, the loss of American lives inflicted by the radical Iranian regime is much higher. Iran’s improvised explosive devices (IEDs) took more than 4,200 American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan—a figure representing approximately 46% of all U.S. war zone deaths between 2006 and 2019—and an estimated 30,000 wounded service members across both conflicts, often resulting in severe disfigurement or limb loss.
Iran under the ayatollahs has been the global number one source of terrorism. These facts alone suggest that the take-down of the present theocratic government in Iran is long overdue.
Defeating the Iranian regime is by no means certain. First, while there was early success in eliminating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, there is no single “second in command” such as a deputy or crown prince. Instead, power is distributed across several overlapping institutions and figures, many of whom have been influenced or appointed by the supreme leader.
Furthermore, these second-tier figures and bodies that now form the core “leadership layer” advising on military policy are decentralized. This presents challenges but is not insurmountable; however, the military campaign may take longer than anticipated.
The Iranian military consists of two parts:
Prior to American and Israeli strikes, the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—which reports directly to the supreme leader—had approximately 200,000 personnel, including the elite Qods Force. The regular military forces, known as the Artesh, with about 420,000 personnel focused on territorial defense, are less ideologically driven and more likely to defect.
Trump’s promise of clemency if Iranian arms were laid down was primarily directed toward members of the Artesh.
Under Article II of the Constitution, the president holds primary responsibility for the security of the American people. And as commander in chief, he possesses comprehensive intelligence capabilities.
Trump’s calculus included understanding devastating risks to the U.S., such as a nuclear EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack originating from international waters—a sea-launched Iranian missile detonating 50 to 250 miles above the United States.
Other intelligence factors include cultural elements in Iran. For instance, the fact that Iran has the fastest growing Christian population globally was part of his calculus for moving against Iran.
Trump has expressed deep concern about Christian persecution and the slaughter of innocent Iranians. He also envisions a future where Iranian patriots and Christians rise up to eliminate the last remnants of the corrupt radical Shia regime.
The best way to ensure a rapid exit without U.S. “boots on the ground” in Iran is through a next phase involving U.S. allies—many Sunni Arab countries—in air-dropping appropriate arms for Iranian Christians and freedom fighters to eliminate the old regime’s remaining elements.
The most effective weapons for the Iranian people to end 47 years of Shia dictatorship should be geared toward urban combat. Typically, these include tools for close-quarters engagement, maneuverability in confined spaces like buildings, breaching doors, and quiet suppression fire.
Long-range sniper rifles are vital as many freedom fighters live in high-rise buildings, providing them commanding heights from which they can target regime forces.
The sooner we equip and train Iranian patriots, the sooner U.S. military forces can withdraw—and President Trump can focus on his America First agenda at home.
Success in foreign policy to rebirth a free Iran, combined with progress in three domestic policy areas, would assure President Trump a preeminent place in history—a fitting legacy for this year’s 250th anniversary of America’s Founding in 1776.
Scott S. Powell is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. He is the author of “Rediscovering America.”
