Trump can declare victory in Iran – and he should

The US president has proven that hitting hard and fast rather than engaging in endless negotiations guarantees victory.

Since Donald Trump entered the political fray, critics have opined that if he ever faced a direct confrontation with Iran as United States president, the result would be chaos, endless war, and global instability. They have been proven wrong once again.

Today, the world is witnessing the swift decisive assertion of US power that is leading to a clear military victory over a terrorist state that has long threatened US as well as global peace and security.

For too long, US foreign policy was dominated by hesitation disguised as sophistication. US presidents, Democrat and Republican, advocated for “containment”, “strategic patience”, and “measured responses”, while adversaries grew bolder and more brazen. Iran expanded its influence across the Middle East, funded proxy militias, threatened global energy supplies, and openly challenged Washington’s credibility by attacking US interests, personnel and assets.

Trump rejected the conventional Washington approach even before assuming public office. He never believed that endless negotiations or carefully worded diplomatic statements would deter a regime that only yields to power. His critics called it recklessness. What it actually was, was clarity.

Instead of drifting into another conventional decade-long war, Trump chose a simple formula: hit hard, hit fast, and make it clear that the US will not capitulate to threats.

Today, most of the foreign policy establishment still defines “victory” the way it did in the 20th century: overthrow the regime, occupy the country, and rebuild its government in our liking. That post-World War II and Cold War model worked in Europe, Asia and Latin America. It did not in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan proved that nation-building can be a futile endeavour.

Trump understands something Washington does not want to admit: the exercise of American power should not be to build democratic societies. It should be to eliminate threats.

From the outset, the Trump administration made clear that it was launching the attacks to control the outcome.

Timing has always been one of Trump’s political talents. He understands momentum better than any of his predecessors of the past few decades did. If the military objectives have already been largely achieved, waiting months to say so would only weaken the message.

Declaring victory at the moment of peak strength sends a powerful signal — not just to Iran, but to the entire world.  It ratifies that the US has red lines again. It makes clear that threats will be met with force, not speeches. And most importantly, it declares that the US is once again confident enough to act decisively.

Critics on the American left will predictably label any Trump victory “premature” and his methods “illegal” and reckless. But their genuine discomfort with his success has more to do with the use of American firepower to achieve objectives that they believe can or should only be had through diplomacy and multilateral rather than unilateral actions.

Trump’s “America First” foreign policy builds on US President Ronald Reagan’s peace through strength mantra by being willing to pre-emptively exercise American might to demonstrate American resolve and deter adversaries. It has proven effective before, and it is proven effective again today.

It destroys the critics’ primary thesis — that American strength must always be restrained, that military power should be used cautiously, and that multilateral strategies are a prerequisite.

Trump’s Iran victory speech will not be lofty and replete with platitudes. It will be direct, simple, and unabashedly America First.

He will explain that the US acted because it had to do so. He will declare that the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran has been eliminated. He will say American lives were saved. And he will end by stating that the world is safer because of this sacrifice by the American people.

America did not need another endless war. It needed a president willing to act.

And that is exactly what it got.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect media’s editorial stance.