By The Signal Editorial Board
“The only thing worse than the Iran that exists now is an Iran with nuclear weapons.”
• • •
“The Iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if we need to. So here’s my message to Iran’s leaders: The United States will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon. As president, I will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States and our allies. I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.”
• • •
“I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment — I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”
• • •
The above statements easily could have been made by President Donald Trump. They are consistent with his policy, approach and actions in dealing with Iran.
But they didn’t come from Trump. They came, in order of appearance above, from Joe Biden (2022), Hillary Clinton (2015) and Barack Obama (2012).
Those three Democrats were right.
That’s two U.S. presidents and a secretary of state, all three of them former U.S. senators, who described an approach to dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat that is entirely consistent with the approach of the current president.
No one likes war. We sure don’t. But envision this scenario, were it to play out several years from now:
Suppose the U.S. did not act, with force, to prevent Iran from continuing to develop nuclear weapons capabilities — as Iranian leadership has vowed that it is its inherent right to do, despite the fact that under international law it is prohibited from doing so, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
And suppose, all the while chanting “Death to Israel, Death to America,” they achieve the capability to deliver those weapons to Tel Aviv and New York City, inflicting a death toll that no one wants to think about.
You can hear the critics now: “Why didn’t you do something?”
The Trump administration, like those several administrations before it, tried diplomacy first. When that failed, it executed a very limited strike on Iranian nuclear weapons development facilities in June 2025. Those strikes were effective, for a time.
But, like a deadly game of whack-a-mole, the Iranian nuclear weapons development efforts resumed.
As a result, the Trump administration decided, in concert with our ally Israel, to hit Iran again — harder this time.
The stakes are high, most importantly from a national security standpoint, and indeed from a world security standpoint: With hardline extremist zealots in control of the Islamic Republic, a nuclear-armed Iran would not be good for anyone — including not just Israel and the U.S., but the Middle East as a whole, Europe, and the world beyond.
This is a regime, don’t forget, that just weeks ago killed tens of thousands of its own citizens simply for daring to dissent, and has a decades-long history of supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and others, that have killed thousands of Americans and Israelis, and in the current conflict has been attacking civilian and commercial targets, even in neighboring nations that were non-combatants.
Allowing the regime to continue on its path unchecked was not an acceptable option.
There are political stakes for Trump, too, and there’s something about his actions on Iran that is misunderstood by many, some willfully: He made the decision to take decisive military action against Iran despite the fact that it will almost certainly hurt him politically.
There are, of course, the Democrats, including those listed above, who oppose everything Trump does, as a knee-jerk reaction, just because they hate him so much. It doesn’t matter if Trump’s decision is in the long-term best interests of the country, nor even does it matter if he has actually done what they vowed to do years ago, but didn’t. They wear blinders to avoid confronting their own hypocrisy.
Beat Trump at all costs. Nothing else matters. That is the mantra of the American left this decade.
Beyond that, though, there is Trump’s own base, which is somewhat divided now. His decision to go all-in on Iran has driven a wedge through his Make America Great Again movement. There are many MAGA Republicans who see it as potentially becoming another one of those “forever wars” that Trump has long vowed to avoid. They feel, in a sense, betrayed by the president they have supported.
You may love him or hate him. He’s that kind of figure. But, domestic political considerations not withstanding, there’s no denying that the president is doing what he feels is in the best interest of the long-term safety and security — not to mention economic interests — of the United States and its allies.
And, he’s likely right.
Trump pushed all of his chips into the center of the table on Iran. It may cost him politically. There’s a midterm election in November, the Republicans hold a slim majority in Congress, and midterms are often tough for the party of a sitting president anyway.
November may not go well for the president, or the Republican Party.
Years from now, though, it’s very likely that history will view his Iran decisions and actions in a much more positive light, especially considering the alternative that would have come with a nuclear-armed Iran.
That scenario, it seems, should be unthinkable and unacceptable — to anyone.
