Tag Archive for: Middle East

PERKINS: For a Skeptical U.S. Electorate, Decisive Action on Iran Is a Must

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The 60-day negotiating period established by the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran expired this week without a final agreement. What does that mean from a national security standpoint, and what are the domestic political implications?

From a national security perspective, the Iranian regime has been significantly degraded, but, as evidenced by the continuing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, it has not been neutralized. And until proven otherwise, its nuclear ambitions remain a threat.

Public polling consistently shows that while Americans care about foreign policy, they rarely vote primarily on foreign-policy issues. Instead, they tend to evaluate events abroad by their impact on America’s security and prosperity at home. The economy, inflation, immigration, and other domestic concerns remain the dominant drivers of voting behavior.

In other words, foreign policy becomes domestic policy when Americans begin paying the price for it.

That may help explain President Trump’s job approval, now at the lowest level of his presidency. Rising inflation and energy costs certainly matter, but I suggest there is something else in the equation: Americans are losing confidence that the conflict with Iran is moving toward a successful conclusion.

In their influential book, “Paying the Human Costs of War,” Christopher Gelpi, Peter Feaver, and Jason Reifler argue that one of the most important factors shaping public support for military conflict is the expectation of success. If Americans believe a conflict will achieve its objectives, they can tolerate substantial costs. When they conclude the mission is unlikely to succeed, support erodes, even when the costs are comparatively low.

That is the danger facing the administration.

Americans can accept sacrifice when they understand the objective and see measurable progress toward it. What is much harder to sustain is sacrifice without a clear sense of when, or how, the conflict will end. Prolonged uncertainty begins to look less like strategy and more like stalemate.

Repeated promises to cripple the “Death to America, Death to Israel” regime, only to follow those threats with renewed invitations to the negotiating table, appear neither to have deterred Tehran nor convinced Americans that success is approaching.

President Trump now faces a choice. He can allow this cycle of confrontation, negotiation, and escalation to continue, or bring the conflict to a decisive conclusion.

The Iranian regime and its malignant ideology have repeatedly demonstrated their resistance to diplomacy as well as political and economic pressure. If the objectives, as initially stated, are to permanently end Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability and remove the threat the regime poses to its own people, the region, and ultimately the United States, then the administration must pursue a policy capable of achieving those objectives while recognizing the political limits of a protracted conflict.

An unresolved conflict carries consequences far beyond the Middle East. Every disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, every increase at the gas pump, and every new round of fighting brings a distant conflict closer to the American kitchen table.

And that is where foreign policy becomes domestic politics.

American elections are usually decided by what happens at home. But history often pivots on events beyond our borders, and sometimes those events determine what happens at home.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Report: Anti-Semitism Is Thriving in Mamdani’s NYC

Trump, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The VDH Doctrine: Bypass Tehran, Recognize Reza Pahlavi’s Government-in-Exile

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

For over four decades, Washington’s posture toward the Islamic Republic of Iran has oscillated between containment, targeted economic sanctions, and episodic diplomatic engagement. Historian and military strategist Victor Davis Hanson argues that this paradigm has proven utterly ineffective at checking Tehran’s regional aggression or supporting the democratic aspirations of the Iranian public. During a high-profile broadcast exchange with commentator Mark Levin, Hanson put forward a provocative shift in U.S. foreign policy: formal diplomatic recognition of an Iranian government-in-exile headed by Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

Hanson’s proposal fundamentally challenges the conventional wisdom of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Rather than treating the clerical regime as the permanent, sole legitimate authority in Tehran, the United States would actively construct a parallel diplomatic reality — one that isolates the ruling theocracy, provides an institutional anchor for internal and external opposition, and charts a credible path toward democratic restoration.

The core of Victor Davis Hanson’s proposal rests on fundamentally shifting American foreign policy away from the perpetual management of the Islamic Republic and toward its active delegitimization. During his discussions with Mark Levin, Hanson argued that decades of containment, economic sanctions, and episodic negotiations have only subsidized the clerical regime’s survival while ignoring the overwhelmingly secular, pro-Western aspirations of the Iranian public. By proposing that Washington explicitly bypass Tehran and formally recognize an Iranian government-in-exile, Hanson challenges the traditional diplomatic status quo. This strategy aims to strip the ruling theocracy of its international standing, isolate its diplomatic channels, and create a structured external pressure point that forces the regime to absorb the full financial and political costs of its domestic tyranny and regional proxy warfare.

The core pillar of Hanson’s argument is that the United States must stop according de facto legitimacy to the Islamic Republic. For decades, Western powers have operated under the assumption that negotiations — whether over nuclear proliferation, regional proxies, or maritime trade — are the only practical mechanism for managing Iranian hostility. Hanson rejects this premise, asserting that engaging with the regime merely subsidizes its survival and undermines most of the Iranian populace, who remain inherently secular, anti-theocratic, and pro-Western.

By formally recognizing a government-in-exile, Washington would send a clear signal: the ruling clerics no longer possess the legal or moral authority to represent the state of Iran on the global stage. Hanson emphasizes that the U.S. should explicitly refuse to negotiate with the current regime and instead engage directly with this provisional alternative. This shift would strip Tehran of its status as an accepted diplomatic actor, isolating its diplomats, restricting its international standing, and forcing the regime to absorb the full political and financial costs of its domestic oppression and regional subversion.

A central pillar of this strategy is establishing a unified political anchor by tapping Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi to head the provisional government under strict, conditional parameters. Rather than facilitating the return of an absolute monarchy, Hanson stresses that U.S. recognition must be contingent on Pahlavi acting strictly as a temporary steward whose primary mandate is organizing free, multi-party democratic elections within one to two years of the regime’s collapse. This approach directly addresses the historic fragmentation of the Iranian opposition, providing internal dissidents, potential military defectors, and foreign allies with a legitimate focal point. By pairing Pahlavi’s long-standing advocacy for secular democratic pluralism with formal Western backing, Hanson’s framework seeks to convert passive resistance into an organized successor state ready to manage a stable post-theocratic transition.

Crucially, Hanson specifies that U.S. recognition must be conditional. The exile government and Pahlavi must commit to a binding agreement: upon returning to a liberated Iran, the interim administration must organize and conduct free, multi-party democratic elections within one to two years. This constraint addresses historical anxieties regarding dynamic power shifts in the region, ensuring that the provisional authority serves strictly as a bridge to a secular republic or constitutional framework chosen directly by the Iranian nation.

As Mark Levin noted during their discussion, Pahlavi has spent decades advocating for political pluralism, secularism, and human rights rather than personal power. Structuring recognition around a strict transitional deadline guarantees that the government-in-exile remains a vehicle for democratic self-determination rather than an autocratic alternative.

One of the greatest historical obstacles facing the Iranian pro-democracy movement has been fragmentation. While internal uprisings — such as the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement — demonstrate widespread domestic resistance, the lack of an organized political head has allowed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to suppress protests piecemeal.

An officially recognized government-in-exile fundamentally alters this dynamic:

  • Unified Political Anchor: It provides a singular, legitimate focal point around which internal dissidents, military defectors, and international allies can rally.
  • Administrative & Financial Utility: A formal exile entity could issue international documentation, establish independent funding channels, and represent Iranian national assets currently frozen abroad.
  • Psychological Pressure on Tehran: As Levin pointed out, the existence of an internationally backed alternative government creates intense strategic anxiety within the clerical establishment, signaling that a structured successor state is prepared to take power the moment the regime falters.

Hanson’s strategic vision extends beyond diplomatic symbolism; it represents a comprehensive doctrine for long-term Middle Eastern stability. The Islamic Republic functions as the principal engine of instability across the Levant and the Persian Gulf, funding a network of armed proxies. Hanson argues that attempting to manage or appease this system is a proven failure.

By aligning American power directly with the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, the U.S. can help catalyze the collapse of the theocracy from within. Establishing a recognized government-in-exile bridges the gap between Washington’s stated commitment to Iranian freedom and its practical foreign policy, transforming passive opposition into an active strategy for democratic transition. Hanson’s proposal provides an actionable, realist blueprint for ending forty-five years of hostility — not through endless war or futile appeasement, but through the deliberate, institutional delegitimization of the clerical dictatorship.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

62% of Americans Want U.S. to Finish the Job in Iran War: Survey

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

A recent survey has revealed that the majority of Americans support continuing the war in Iran. Sixty-two percent of surveyed general election voters agree with the statement “The United States must finish the job once and for all to protect the United States and our allies — which means ensuring that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon and can no longer threaten American lives” data from Tea Party Patriots Action found.

The poll also asserted that the numbers found in the survey should be a “reality check” for the media.

“72% of Americans — including 60% of Democrats — agree that Iran cannot be allowed to exert control over the Strait of Hormuz, which is consistent with President Trump’s policy,” Tea Party Patriots Action Chairman Jenny Beth Martin told Breitbart News.

Martin continued, “And 62% of Americans — including 56% of Independents — believe that we need to ‘finish the job’ in Iran. … There is no split in the conservative movement on this issue. … Conservatives are overwhelmingly sticking with President Trump and the American people as a whole agree with the president’s strategy.”

During “This Week on Capitol Hill” earlier this month, Rep. Pat Harrigan (R) of North Carolina told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins that it’s easy to forget that the last war America really won was World War II, which is something often taken for granted.

“We firebombed almost every major German city, every major Japanese city. We dropped two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the bottom line is Germany stopped fighting because we killed 37% of their adult male population,” Harrigan said. “That is really hard for people to swallow, but there’s no historical evidence or precedent to say that limited conflict worked. So, if you’re not willing to employ total war, then you shouldn’t go to war, right? Because the outcomes of failed conflict, of failed foreign intervention, have been absolutely terrible for the United States of America in the last 80 years.”

Harrigan further argued that if America is going to finish the job in Iran, it needs to change its overall approach.

“You have to put the Iranian regime in a box where they have to decide between taking care of their 92 million people… [or] continue to pursue red lines that are intolerable to the United States of America. We have not yet put them in that box, but I think with the strikes over the last couple of days, it seems like the administration is maybe moving towards showing the Iranian regime [that] we are willing to put them in that box,” Harrigan concluded.

The pollster group McLaughlin & Associates also asked respondents if they believe “Iran should not be allowed to block, attack, mine, or extort ships in the Strait of Hormuz.” According to Breitbart, “72% said they agree with that statement, while 17.5% disagree. Another 11% do not know.”

“Iran has consistently threatened U.S. safety, pursuing a nuclear program with the stated purpose of destroying Israel and causing mass destruction to the United States,” the survey stated. “If we don’t finish the job now, the United States may have to take further military action months or years from now. Decisions about any specific military action are for the president, as commander in chief, to make.”

As Harrigan pointed out, “The question is, where do we go from here? We do have options,” he insisted. “We have had successes on the ground in this conflict. So let’s make the decisions we need to make.”

AUTHOR

Quinn Delamater

Quinn Delamater is a reporter for The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump to Meet Netanyahu at White House Today

Breaking: Iran Launches Missiles at US Base in Surprise Attack – US Forces Downed Every Single One

Arab Writers: Military Action Should Be Taken Against The Iranian Regime To Overthrow It

Ukraine Hits Iranian Ship Delivering Russian War Materiel to Iran

Six Muslims Arrested in Foiled Islamic Terror Plot Against Paris Synagogue—Media Blackout Ensues

Saudi Columnist: The UK Is Sheltering Muslim Brotherhood Members And Jihadis, Turning London Into ‘Londonistan’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

To Avoid Forever Wars, U.S. Must Fight to Win: Congressman

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump on Tuesday scuttled his plans to impose a 20% toll on every ship the U.S. Navy escorted through the Strait of Hormuz, as hostilities with Iran drift along with no harbor in sight. “Based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership, I have decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States,” he wrote.

The announcement reverses Trump’s Monday declaration that “the U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World.”

Trump’s toll announcement accompanied news that the U.S. would reimpose its blockade of Iranian shipping, while allowing ships from other nations to transit the Strait of Hormuz freely. Although Trump reversed himself on the toll, the blockade remains in effect.

“Nobody should be charging to use geographical waterways. That’s something that is the foundation of maritime law, and it seems like we’re getting away from that,” urged Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.) Monday on “Washington Watch.” “It sends very problematic signals as to what the future of the economic status of the strait is going to be with respect to tolling. … I don’t think we have fully seen the international reaction, particularly from all of our allies to this potential solution.”

According to President Trump, “highly productive conversations” with foreign leaders induced him to reverse himself on a Hormuz toll.

Trump’s maritime policy maneuvers came in reaction to the resumption of hostilities. Over the weekend and into Monday, Iran fired on U.S. military facilities around the Gulf region, as well as on civilians in neutral countries, while the U.S. returned fire with devastating effect.

The belligerence contrasts sharply with the uneasy ceasefire that prevailed only days earlier. “It looked like we were on a path to potentially a diplomatic resolution [of] the war being over,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “Now it appears that all the diplomatic things are off the table, and we’re back right at it in open combat.”

“It’s really unfortunate,” answered Harrigan. But, “to some extent, with Iran’s history — 47 years of sponsoring terrorism and just being a source for chaos in the region and in the world over — this is kind of a predictable place for us to be.”

“That’s a consequence of us failing to put Iran in a box,” Harrigan declared, “where they had to make really tough choices between continuing to pursue red lines that were intolerable to the United States and its Western allies, and providing for the 92 million people inside of the country. … I don’t think that we did that. And that’s why we’re in the situation that we’re in.”

“I was disappointed that the president stopped and had a ceasefire in the first place. I think, once you decide to go, you’ve got to go — and you’ve got to go all the way,” Harrigan continued. “If you’re going to decide to kick the hornet’s nest —and this is the hornet’s nest of all hornet’s nests in the Middle East — if you decide to put your boot on their throat, you do not take your boot off until they are done breathing. We failed to do that, and we’re reaping the consequences of it now.”

The reason why Iran has proven to be such a hornet’s nest is that “the ideology driving this regime does not allow them to [be] dealt with as a reasonable nation,” Perkins said. As the recently departed Senator Lindsey Graham said, “Being part of the [Iranian] regime takes you out of the reasonable camp, [unless] you think it’s reasonable to want to make the entire world bend to your knee as a religion. They’re religious Nazis.”

Through the ill-timed ceasefire, the Trump administration has discovered that retreating from the cusp of victory entails the disadvantages of both belligerent and conciliatory strategies. Not only is our Navy tied up in a Middle East operation with no timetable for an exit, but the Strait of Hormuz has not been restored to its pre-war status, due to the ongoing threat of Iranian attacks.

“Now we’re looking at a very different strategic scenario, where we have allowed an influx of capital into the country because we lift[ed] sanctions for a period of time. We allowed vessels to leave the strait and enrich Iran and at least give them some breathing room,” Harrigan lamented. “I just would like everybody in Washington, D.C., to actually have eyes wide open with what the stakes are with the decisions that have to be made in the very near future.”

“One thing that’s absolutely clear is [that] both Republicans and Democrats agree that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,” Harrigan added. “And we’ve got to keep that original mission in complete focus as we move forward towards a resolution.”

“However, it’s really complicated to get there from here, given the decisions that we have made up to this point,” Harrigan admitted. “This war should have been over a long time ago.”

The main disadvantage President Trump faces in the war, which only increases as the conflict drags on, is public polling. “The American people do not like this conflict. It’s got [a] 25% approval rating,” said Harrigan. “But everybody hates Iran. How do you square those two things? You square them with the right outcome,” he proposed.

For Harrigan, this means that the U.S. must no longer fight wars in half-measures but fight to win. “We’ve got to get away from using military force when we are not willing to use it completely, when we are not willing to operate the military in line with the doctrine that we have created (to achieve overwhelming, decisive superiority against our adversaries) and instead practice limited war,” he insisted. “Limited war, for the last 80 years, has done the United States of America zero favors.”

“What’s so frustrating for people like me who are veterans of the Global War on Terror, having won every single tactical engagement that I ever participated in, is that the United States continually struggles to turn tactical victory into strategic outcomes,” Harrigan complained. “That is no different here in Iran. And it’s not because we lack the capability to do it. It’s actually because we lack the principled decision-making to actually implement it.”

“We do not want to see us get into another situation where we end up in an endless conflict,” Harrigan continued. But, “in order to do that, you have to act decisively. We have not done that up to this point.”

“I was thinking about this over the weekend,” Perkins responded. “With the exception of the first Gulf War, where we went in with overwhelming force and we succeeded … since the Korean War, we have fought [with] this idea of containment … as opposed to victory, and it’s been seen in the outcomes.”

“When the president decides that we have to use force, we better darn well use that force and achieve the outcomes that we initially set out to achieve,” Harrigan summarized, “or all of this ends up being for naught, and we just end up chalking Iran up to another long line of foreign interventions that have not served the United States of America well over the last 80 years.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Huckabee: Americans Fail to Grasp the Threat of Iran

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Conflict between Iran and the U.S. has resumed, despite the efforts of President Donald Trump to secure peace in the troubled region. According to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the U.S. military conducted “a new wave of offensive strikes against Iran” on Sunday, successfully striking “dozens” of targets. At issue is Iran’s continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for the shipment of oil globally. “The Strait of Hormuz is a vital maritime corridor for global trade. Iran does not control it,” a statement from CENTCOM read. “U.S. forces are postured and prepared to ensure that freedom of navigation remains available to commercial shipping despite Iran’s continued unwarranted aggression, harassment, threats, and arbitrary declarations.”

Over the past year, the U.S. involvement in the Middle East has largely centered on Iran’s threats against Israel. This time, however, Israel does not appear to be a party to the conflict, which, as U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee pointed out in an interview on “This Week on Capitol Hill” on Saturday, is probably a good thing. “Israel has not been engaged in it, and it’s probably smart that Iran does not fire missiles toward Israel because they would be compelled to fire them back,” Huckabee said, following a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also warned that Iran is more than just a threat to Israel, but also to the U.S.

“You have to separate Hezbollah from the mothership of Iran, and the reason that’s so important is because Iran has been supplying funds and weapons and strategy” to the Middle Eastern paramilitary organization, Huckabee said. He noted that cutting Iran off from Hezbollah would destabilize the latter and severely limit the threat that Hezbollah could pose. Furthermore, he pointed out that Hezbollah is active across the Western hemisphere and has actually killed more Americans than Israelis. “When the U.S. and people in America say, ‘Well, it doesn’t affect me,’ they have no idea what they’re talking about. Of course it affects them,” the ambassador insisted. “If you can step on the oxygen hose and keep Hezbollah from getting all of this oxygen from Iran, you do a lot to really upend terror…”

“One of the ways in which, again, Americans, I think, fail to grasp the threat of Iran — for 47 years they’ve been saying they’re going to kill us. Now, when people tell you that same thing over and over for that many years, you’re wise to believe them and you’re foolish to ignore them,” Huckabee added. He pointed out that recent reports from Israeli intelligence suggest that Iranian operatives inside the U.S. are plotting to assassinate the president.

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz confirmed that Iranian operatives are actively plotting to assassinate the president. “I won’t get into specific intelligence, but this regime — going all the way up to the Ayatollah — has plotted to kill President Trump for many years,” Waltz stated. “They have operatives here in the United States. Plots are ongoing. But our intelligence community, the FBI, our law enforcement entities are absolutely on top of it,” he added. “But make no mistake that the Iranian regime is trying to kill President Trump and those around him.”

According to Waltz, the Iranian regime is attempting to “use the global economy as some type of leverage” by blocking the Strait of Hormuz and preventing safe passage for commercial craft. “What Iran is doing is in violation of international law,” the ambassador said. “Regardless of whether you’re a party to some conflict, you cannot start shooting in all directions, attacking your neighbors, attacking civilian shipping, civilian infrastructure, throwing mines in international waterways, and acting like the irresponsible, genocidal regime that many have always accused it of being.” He noted that Iranian officials claimed that opening fire upon commercial ships over the weekend was a mistake, an error on the part of junior officers. However, Waltz questioned why those junior officers were not disciplined by a military regime renowned for dictatorial autocracy. He asked, “At the end of the day, where’s the discipline and the public apology if that’s the case?”

In the meantime, this growing divide on Israel here at home misses a fundamental point, Perkins insisted. “Israel is also, despite reports to the contrary, a stabilizing force in the Middle East. But what we see on the horizon with Iran as really kind of the strongman — or at least the big nuisance there in the Middle East being curtailed — that vacuum is going to be filled by someone, some country, some leader. I think Israel has the potential to be an even greater stabilizing force [when that happens],” he told Huckabee.

Perkins attributed the drift in the church away from Israel to “biblical illiteracy.” Huckabee agreed, reminding viewers that standing with Israel is “scriptural.” “I mean, I could give you a lot of geopolitical reasons. I could give you humanitarian reasons. I could give you historic reasons. I could give you economic reasons. And all of those are important, and all of them should weigh in,” the ambassador emphasized. “But the ultimate reason for evangelicals is because we’re people of the book.”

American Christians need to recognize “the important role that Israel plays [and] recognize Genesis 1:23 as a biblical mandate,” the ambassador said. “And some of it is the fear of some pulpits, [and] pastors who are afraid of their own congregations — afraid to offend them, afraid to upset them. But if you upset them because you’re preaching the Scripture, because you are faithfully delivering the Word of God, then you’re not in trouble in a bad way. If that gets you in trouble,” he insisted, “then you should be in trouble. The prophets of old were willing to get in trouble with the people, because they didn’t want to be in trouble with God. If that’s my choice, I’ll be in trouble with a congregation any day not to be in trouble with the Creator God of the universe,” Huckabee said.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Victor Davis Hanson: The US Needs to Hit Iran Harder to End the War

IRANIAN CROWN PRINCE REZA PAHLAVI: “The people of Iran will not settle for anything less than the complete collapse of this regime.”

TRUMP CRANKS UP THE PRESSURE ON IRAN

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Rubio Dispatched To Middle East Amid Ongoing Iran Talks

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be traveling to the Middle East from June 23 to June 25 while Vice President JD Vance leads talks with Iran over the war.

Rubio is set to visit the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait and Bahrain, State Department spokesman Thomas Pigott said in a statement Monday. He will also speak with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Bahrain to address common priorities in the area. Vance began talks with Iran on ending the war and intermediaries June 21 after President Donald Trump signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) June 17.

Pigott said, “The Secretary will discuss a range of priorities including the memorandum of understanding with Iran, efforts to secure full and free safe transit through the Strait of Hormuz, and the importance of safety in the region.”

The GCC has supported U.S. efforts to end the war with Iran, but they also have concerns over some of the aspects of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) the U.S. made with Iran, Reuters reported. The current MOU includes a $300 billion reconstruction fund to Tehran, which Gulf State leaders worry may allow Iran to rebuild the military capacity the U.S. destroyed. They are also reportedly concerned about potential future dangers from Iranian missiles and drones.

The MOU between the U.S. and Iran calls for “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” However, U.S. officials said Monday that the agreement does not necessitate Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, according to The Guardian. Lebanon’s National News Agency said Israel struck multiple targets June 20, three days after Iran and the U.S. signed the MOU, although Israel claimed they were retaliating against an attack from Hezbollah, Reuters reported.

Pigott did not name which specific leaders Rubio will be meeting with or which days he is visiting the individual countries. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman are all members of the GCC.

The MOU gives the U.S. and Tehran a 60-day window to reach a more in-depth agreement.

The U.S. began launching strikes on Iran on Feb. 28, prompting the Islamic Republic to effectively halt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Editor’s note: Article updated with additional information. This is a developing story and will be updated.

AUTHOR

Evelyn Elliott

Contributor

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Temporarily Lifts Sanctions On Iranian Oil After Pledge To Allow Nuclear Inspectors Into The Country

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Key to Peace In the Middle East Rests With The Iranian People

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

A Reckoning with the Past and a Call for Action 

As protests in Iran persist, demanding greater freedom and a transition to democracy, the United States needs to reflect on its past actions, particularly about Iran, and decide on a course of action. To clarify: The Iranian people have been yearning for change, and the United States must stand firmly with them.

So, let us evaluate the U.S.’s past and present policies toward Iran with some practical advice for the current administration. We will also try to critically examine former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s role in the rise of Shiite Islam in Iran and praise President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Furthermore, let this serve as a warning against supporting groups like the Mujahidin Khalgh (MEK) while advocating for support for secular Iranians and condemning the Iran nuclear deal for its hidden perils.

The Iranian Uprising: A Cry for Freedom

Protests have been raging in Iran for over a year, ignited by the tragic death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman, who was arrested for the perceived violation of Iran’s strict hijab laws. The following protests have become a massive movement, demanding greater freedoms and a complete change in the country’s leadership. Many protesters chanted, ‘Women, Life, Freedom’ —a famous rallying cry after nationwide protests erupted following Amini’s death last year. As the world watches these brave Iranians struggle for a better future, it becomes abundantly clear that they support their cause more actively. Doing so is not just a matter of principle; it’s a strategic imperative for regional peace and stability.

Encouraging International Support

The United States should lead the charge in rallying international support for the Iranian protesters. Diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and targeted measures against Iranian officials and entities involved in repression, censorship, and prison abuses should be employed. By taking the lead, the U.S. can encourage its European allies and other nations to join a unified front, sending a clear message to the Iranian regime.

A Democratic Movement in Iran

A popular democratic movement in Iran is desirable and necessary to bring about lasting change. The Islamic Republic’s oppressive regime is incompatible with the aspirations of the Iranian people. Our responsibility is to aid in the transition to a more democratic, representative government that respects the rule of law and individual rights.

Young Iranians, mainly the urban-educated Iranians, are among the most ardent believers in democracy worldwide. Many view America as the country with the best hope for spreading and protecting the high ideals of democracy. In a sense, many Iranians feel a closer affinity with a democratic Israel than all the neighboring Arab Muslim dictatorships. Although Islam was imposed on Iran some 1400 years ago, Iranians deeply value their ancient non-Arab identity and have never fully surrendered to the Arab culture. During the bloodletting war initiated by the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein against Iran, all Arab states sided with the Butcher of Baghdad against Iran. Yet, Israel was the only Middle Eastern country that remained neutral and helped Iran in the struggle. We Iranians don’t forget our friends, and we also remember our enemies.

Economic Measures

The United States should reconsider sanctions regulations that impede Iran’s interaction with international financial institutions, as such restictions may inadvertently harm the Iranian people. Instead, the U.S. should establish a fund dedicated to supporting the Iranian protest movement and promoting economic stability in the country during this period of upheaval. It is good that the US has imposed sanctions on Iranian officials and entities connected to the repression of protests, censorship, and prison abuses.

Amplifying Support through Media

  • The US should utilize traditional and social media to amplify and sustain support for the Iranian people.
  • By publicly championing their cause, we ensure their struggle does not fade into obscurity.
  • Publicizing their plight keeps the international community engaged and aware of the ongoing protests, which in turn exerts more pressure on the Iranian government to address the demands of its people.
  • President Joe Biden and other high-ranking officials should vigorously embrace traditional and social media to amplify and sustain their support for the Iranian people and remind demonstrators that the administration stands with them.

Facilitating Internet Access

Protesters in Iran rely heavily on the internet for communication and organization. The U.S. should take measures to facilitate greater access to the Internet for the Iranian people. This empowers them to organize more effectively and allows them to communicate with the outside world, shedding light on the situation inside Iran and garnering international support.

The Obama Fiasco

When Obama went on his apology world tour, bad-mouthing the United States and singing the praises of Islam and internationalism, he showed vacillation and weakness at every turn. For one, he did not even find it in himself to voice his support for the brave Iranians against the rule of fascist mullahs in the 2009 Green Revolution.

The results: Thousands of democracy’s best children of Iran were slaughtered, maimed, or imprisoned, and the Iranian mullahs are encouraged and have tripled their speed in the quest for their ultimate weapon, knowing full well that you neither can nor will do anything to stop them.

He failed to voice his support for the people. It implied that what was happening in Iran was a kind of family dispute best left to be settled by the Iranians themselves. A family feud indeed. One side of the “family” with legions of savages armed to the teeth, the Revolutionary Guard  (IRGC) and their hired thugs, and the other side of the “family” defenseless civilians using their voices to plead their case. The Islamic rulers spared no heinous means in mercilessly silencing the people’s representatives.

Today, the IRGC possesses an enormous power structure with influence over almost every aspect of Iranian life. Unlike the regular armed forces responsible for defending Iran’s territory, the IRGC was explicitly designed to protect the Islamic revolution itself and eavesdrop on the regular military. Khomeini never trusted the regular army.

No nation provided even moral support for the Iranian people, while the savage mullahs and their thugs consolidated their rule of terror with impunity. The same scenario is recurring, and the world’s silence is deafening while we are engaged in the Ukraine war.

Carter’s Legacy and the Rise of the Islamic Terrorism

It is impossible to discuss Iran’s tumultuous history without evaluating the role of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. His tenure oversaw a turbulent period in Iran’s history, ultimately leading to the rise of Shiite Islam and the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Carter’s actions, or lack thereof, are attributable to the birth of a regime that has caused immeasurable death, suffering, and turmoil, particularly during the Iran-Iraq war. The heavy toll of hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives lost in that conflict is a painful reminder of the consequences of policies that failed to support the Iranian people.

As President Carter dithered, Khomeini’s influence grew, and his message of Islamic revolution resonated with the Muslim population seeking an alternative to the Shah’s regime. The Carter administration’s failure to understand the dynamics of the Iranian opposition and its inability to support pro-democracy forces ultimately contributed to the rise of the Islamic Republic.

The upheavals of 1979 shattered the existing order, and a turbaned charlatan that Jimmy Carter called a saint, Ayatollah Khomeini, skillfully steered the forces of change to promote his brand of totalitarian rule—a rule aimed at taking Iran backward to a primitive, violent, and misogynistic society.

Carter made a bone-headed decision some forty-five years ago. Both Iranians and Americans paid dearly and continue to pay.

The Trump Administration’s Bold Move: Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal

In stark contrast to Carter’s legacy, the Trump administration made a crucial decision in May 2018, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and reinstating sanctions. This move was not merely an act of political bravado; it was a statement that the Iranian regime, with its history of deception, violence, and religious fanaticism, could not be trusted. It marked a turning point in U.S. policy toward Iran, reflecting an understanding of the true nature of the Islamic Republic.

The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Flawed Bargain

The Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was touted as a diplomatic achievement that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. However, it had significant flaws. Under the JCPOA, Iran was allowed to continue its nuclear program, albeit with certain limitations. While proponents argued that these restrictions would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, critics rightly pointed out that it allowed Iran to maintain its nuclear infrastructure, setting the stage for a potential breakout once the restrictions expired.

Moreover, the deal did little to address Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region. Iran supported proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, and incited violence in neighboring countries. The influx of funds resulting from sanctions relief further emboldened Iran’s aggressive regional behavior.

The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the deal recognized these shortcomings and stated that the United States would not disregard Iran’s destabilizing actions.

Beware of Cultish Groups: Rejecting the MEK

While we acknowledge the need to support the Iranian people, we must heed the warnings of history and avoid supporting groups like the Mujahidin Khalgh (MEK). We must discern our choices and not inadvertently back an organization that could harm the people it claims to represent.

The MEK, considered a terrorist organization, has a dark militant history and a controversial reputation. While it claims to advocate for democracy and freedom in Iran, it has been criticized for its cult-like practices and authoritarian leadership. Supporting such a group could have unintended consequences, potentially undermining the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people.

As we acknowledge the need to support the Iranian people, it is vital to heed the warnings of history and avoid supporting groups like the Mujahidin Khalgh (MEK). “The MEK is not a valid player on the Iranian political scene. They have no credibility in Iran,” warns Ryan Crocker, former US Ambassador to Iraq.

I must strongly warn my fellow Americans not to repeat President Jimmy Carter’s monumental folly that brought the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini to power and birthed Islamist jihadism by standing behind Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the notorious Mujahidin-e Khalq or (MEK), the most dangerous terrorist group that even abused and murdered their members for trying to defect or escape from Camp Ashraf in Iraq. It would be equivalent to betraying the ideals of America—the flag holder of freedom in the world.

Secular Iranians are our True Allies

The path forward lies in championing the cause of secular Iranians, the United States’ best friends in the Islamic world. Their vision for a democratic Iran, where individual rights and freedoms are respected, aligns with our values and interests. We must throw our full support behind them in their quest for a brighter future.

The protests in Iran have revealed the Iranian people’s unwavering determination for a better future in which they enjoy the same rights and freedoms that citizens of free nations often take for granted. It is our responsibility as the United States, a beacon of democracy and liberty, to support their aspirations.

While history contains valuable lessons, the present moment calls for a bold, resolute stance. We must rally behind the Iranian people, drawing from our past experiences to navigate the complex landscape of Iranian politics. By standing with the Iranian people in their pursuit of democracy and freedom, we can help pave the way for a more peaceful Middle East.

The time for action is now, and the United States must seize the opportunity to be a force for good in Iran and beyond. In doing so, we can ensure that the tragic mistakes of the past are not repeated and that the Iranian people can finally achieve the freedoms they so desperately desire.

Final note

Once the Islamic regime is defeated, it would be the greatest thing since the fall of Soviet communism. It would subvert virulent Islamic ideology by creating a truly democratic, secular, strong nation in tandem with Israeli democracy in the heart of the Islamic Ummah. It would be an answered prayer just as much for the world as for Iranians.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

The Iran War Didn’t End — It Changed Shape

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Hours after President Trump extended the ceasefire with Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps seized two container ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Talks in Pakistan collapsed without an agreement. The nuclear stockpile is buried underground and unaccounted for. And Beijing is already cashing in.

If that sounds like peace, we have badly redefined the word.

What we are witnessing is not the end of this war. It is a transition into a more complicated — and potentially more dangerous — phase of it. The visible conflict is winding down. The harder one has already begun.

Our Military Did Its Job

Let me be direct about what our forces accomplished. Navy, Army, and Air Force crews operating in the constrained waters of the Persian Gulf and aircrews executing precision strikes imposed real costs on a dangerous regime. They degraded Iran’s conventional navy — over 150 ships now rest on the bottom. They demonstrated American reach. They restored a measure of deterrence. That matters.

But history is unambiguous on one point: military success does not automatically produce strategic success. Clausewitz understood this two centuries ago. A war is not defined by targets destroyed. It is defined by the political outcome achieved. By that standard, this conflict remains unresolved.

The Score So Far

Iran’s conventional military capabilities have been degraded. Its proxies have been pressured. Those are real, hard-won achievements. But the regime is still standing. Its nuclear ambitions are unresolved. Its grip on the world’s most critical shipping lane is intact.

The Clausewitz test makes it clear: degrading Iran’s arsenal is not the same as changing Iran’s political behavior. Regime survival is Tehran’s definition of victory. By that measure, they are still in the game.

The nuclear question is the sharpest edge of this problem. Before the war, Iran held nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium just short of weapons-grade purity, according to the IAEA. U.S. and Israeli strikes hit above-ground facilities, but the IAEA’s director general stated plainly that the program cannot be eliminated by airstrikes — that the material remains largely where it was, perhaps buried deep at Isfahan and Natanz. That is not a resolved problem. It is a deferred one.

The Strait Is the Center of Gravity

Iran’s conventional navy is gone. What remains is more dangerous in different ways. IRGC fast-attack craft now serve as the backbone of Tehran’s remaining naval strategy — armed speedboats and gunboats capable of harassment, boarding, and seizure in narrow waters where our carriers cannot maneuver effectively. Washington Institute analyst Farzin Nadimi has noted that Iran’s IRGC Navy relies on large numbers of small, fast-attack craft — with estimates ranging into the thousands of vessels — designed for swarm tactics in the Persian Gulf. That is not a fleet you eliminate with a two-week air campaign.

The strategic weight of this is enormous. The Strait handles roughly one-fifth of global oil supply and the same share of LNG during peacetime. Approximately 2,000 ships remain stranded in the Gulf, waiting for clearance from two rival militaries. The International Energy Agency has called this the largest oil supply disruption in history — larger than the 1970s shocks. Tehran knows this and is playing it deliberately.

There is, however, a structural consequence of this crisis that works against Iran long-term. Gulf states have told CNBC that Iran’s behavior has created a “huge trust gap” that may never be repaired, and they are already acting on it. Saudi Arabia has pushed its East-West Pipeline to full capacity — seven million barrels a day — routing exports to the Red Sea port of Yanbu and bypassing the Strait entirely. Iraq is reopening the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline through Turkey to the Mediterranean. Every barrel that moves through those alternative corridors is a barrel that no longer depends on Iranian goodwill. Iran’s chokehold is loosening — slowly — and the Gulf states intend to make that permanent.

China Is Watching — and Winning

The dimension Washington is not discussing loudly enough is China. In “The New AI Cold War,” I argue that great-power competition plays out in every theater simultaneously. Iran is a classroom as much as a battlefield, and Beijing is studying every lesson.

Beijing purchased roughly 80 to 90% of Iran’s exported oil going into this conflict and used a shadow fleet to assemble a strategic petroleum reserve of approximately 1.2 billion barrels — about 109 days of seaborne import cover — at below-market rates, using the very oil Western sanctions were designed to strand. China entered this war with full tanks. It is learning that the United States can dominate the opening phase of a conventional conflict — and that converting military dominance into decisive political outcomes is far harder. Those observations feed directly into Beijing’s calculus on Taiwan and the South China Sea.

The Road Ahead

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News this week that Iran’s fractured leadership is the biggest obstacle to a durable agreement. They are all hardliners, he said — but split between those who understand they need to run a country and economy, and those “completely motivated by theology” with “an apocalyptic vision of the future.” The latter holds ultimate power. That does not produce flexible negotiating partners.

Iran’s strategy has never changed. It does not need to defeat the United States. It needs to endure — to survive long enough to rebuild, reposition, and reassert. That game is measured in years, not weeks.

The path forward is straightforward on paper. Maintain the naval blockade. Treat the Strait as a permanent strategic priority, not a temporary inconvenience. Keep degrading Iran’s proxy network. And stand firm on nuclear issues. The IAEA chief has already warned that any deal without inspection provisions is an “illusion of an agreement” — a lesson learned the hard way after Desert Storm, when inspectors discovered how far Iraq’s secret weapons programs had advanced.

The Test Ahead

President Trump made the right decision to act. Our military executed with distinction. But the test of strategy is not the first eight weeks.

Iran has been checked — not changed. The regime is still standing. The Strait is still contested. The uranium stockpile is still buried underground, unverified, and unresolved.

This conflict has not ended. It has changed shape. The first war was fought with force. The second will be fought with patience, discipline, and strategic clarity. That is the harder war to win. We had better be prepared to fight it.

AUTHOR

Robert Maginnis

Robert Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, and the author of 14 books. His latest, “The New AI Cold War,” releases in April 2026.

RELATED VIDEO: Victor Davis Hanson: Iran Is Breaking Down, and the Ripple Effects Are Just Beginning

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Cracks Start to Show in Iran’s Shaky Truce with Trump

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

To the entire planet’s relief, Artemis II isn’t flying back to an Earth marked by a gigantic atomic plume. While no one knows what the president had planned, whatever ballistic holocaust that Donald Trump threatened for Iran on Tuesday night didn’t happen. Ninety minutes before his deadline for bombing the country into extinction, the White House declared a buzzer-beating two-week ceasefire. And while the announcement provided some much-needed breathing space for the Middle East, it also triggered an onslaught of questions about just how sincere the prospect of peace could actually be.

Unlike the president, who went from proposing the region’s annihilation to suggesting the region was about to enter its “Golden Age,” others are wondering if the two nations can even make it 10 days without trading fire. While coming to the table is a savvy way to buy time (Hamas made a professional sport of it), who’s to say Iran is interested in upholding any sort of treaty with the West? As Jim Geraghty at NRO reminds the optimists, a recurring theme of the regime is its willingness to break just about every peace deal it’s ever signed.

But then, how exactly does one have “peace” with Islamist radicals honor-bound to annihilate every non-Muslim on the planet? No one is quite sure. Maybe that’s why Vice President J.D. Vance was quick to describe the current agreement as a “fragile truce.” “If the Iranians are willing in good faith to work with us, I think we can make an agreement,” he said. “If they’re going to lie, if they’re going to cheat, if they’re trying then to prevent even the fragile truce that we’ve set up from taking place, then they’re not going to be happy,” he warned, “because what the president has also shown is that we still have clear military, diplomatic and, maybe most importantly, we have extraordinary economic leverage.”

Right now, the two sides seem to be oceans apart on terms. To hear Trump tell it, the United States will be “hangin’ around” the Strait of Hormuz to “make sure that everything goes well” in the strategic waterway. In America’s reportedly 15-point plan, there’s obviously interest in making sure that Iran never acquires — or tries to acquire — nuclear weapons again. The president is also insisting on removing the remains of Iran’s “previous stockpiles” of uranium. Then, of course, there are the concerns about the regime’s cooperation in the global oil trade.

By Wednesday afternoon, the regime was already breaking its word on the Strait of Hormuz, closing it in retaliation for Israel’s continued bombardment of Lebanon, and striking energy complexes across Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. “That is completely unacceptable,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt argued. “And again, this is a case of what they’re saying publicly is different privately. We have seen an uptick of traffic in the Strait today. And I will reiterate the president’s expectation and demand that the Strait of Hormuz is reopened immediately, quickly, and safely. That is his expectation.”

Meanwhile, Iran has its own list of 10 mind-boggling demands — nine and a half of which, Geraghty underscores, are complete non-starters.

  • “The U.S. should commit, in principle, to guarantee non-aggression
  • Iran’s continued control of the Strait of Hormuz
  • Iran’s uranium enrichment right should be accepted
  • Lifting of all primary sanctions
  • Lifting of all secondary sanctions
  • Termination of all U.N. Security Council resolutions
  • Termination of all IAEA Board of Governors resolutions
  • Payment of compensation for damages inflicted on Iran
  • Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region
  • Cessation of the war on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic resistance in Lebanon” (aka Hezbollah)

“A U.S. concession to just about any of them would represent a dreadful setback to American national security interests,” he underscores. “This is an ayatollah’s wish list. Late last month, I warned, ‘What’s left of the Iranian regime will make promises that they have no intention of keeping, lie at the negotiating table and in television interviews, cheat, steal, block international inspectors — you name it.’ In light of this,” Geraghty shook his head, “it is fair to wonder what the point of negotiating with them is.”

Recognizing that Iran is likely not acting in good faith, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told reporters Wednesday that American troops are “not going anywhere” until this deal is iron-clad. “Our troops are prepared to defend, prepared to go on offense, prepared to restart at a moment’s notice with whatever target package would be needed,” he insisted. “What we know is that Iran is going to say a lot of things. A lot of people are going to say a lot of things, claim a lot of things.” As for the Strait of Hormuz, Hegseth shrugged. “What has been agreed to, what’s been stated, is the strait is open. Our military is watching. I’m sure their military is watching, but commerce will flow. And that’s what you saw the market reacts to, is that reality.”

The tenuous deal did seem to at least temporarily placate Wall Street and the oil industry, where prices dropped $100 a barrel. Financial markets around the world were also up after Trump postponed Iran’s obliteration. But, as experts are quick to point out, “Keep in mind: there are a lot of oil refineries, natural gas facilities, industrial sites, and ports in the Arab states that have been damaged in the past five weeks, and repairing those sites will take time.”

Speaking of those damaged sites, the reality of what the U.S. and Israeli militaries accomplished in these few weeks is astounding. While the media spares no ink praising Trump’s unprecedented offensive against the number one state sponsor of terrorism, the breadth of destruction in Iran is impressive by any metric. Let’s review, Noah Rothman urges. “Iran’s central nervous system has been severed. … Its command-and-control, intelligence, and domestic security apparatuses have been severely degraded. Its navy and air force are gone. Its air defense network and nuclear weapons programs — two pricey sources of regime prestige — are in ruins. Its petrochemical and steel industries have been badly damaged, truncating two major sources of foreign revenue that sustain the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” When the Iranian people “come for their tormenters again,” he added, pointing to the massive protests, “they will do so knowing the state terror apparatus that has haunted them for generations is a shell of what it once was.”

Operation Epic Fury has been, by all accounts, a groundbreaking success. How it ends, however, matters — a fact that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reiterated to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Wednesday’s “Washington Watch.” Look, the senator admitted, “I prefer diplomacy to end the reign of terror of the Iranian regime. But the goal is to end the Iranian regime’s terror tactics. And if we can do it through diplomacy, fine.” But, he cautioned, “The president said today that the 10-point Iranian plan he didn’t support. … He’d like to end this well, but it takes two to tango. And I’m very suspicious that Iran will ever do this,” he cautioned. “It’s in their DNA to want to acquire a nuclear weapon because this is not a normal regime.”

For Iran, Graham insisted, “It’s a face-saving deal. [But] I don’t care about saving face for somebody who’s killed 45,000 of their own people [and who’s] got American blood dripping from their hands.”

To those on the Left and around the world who shamed Trump for acting against Iran, Graham’s colleague, Senator Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) reminds everyone, “For 47 years, they’ve been shooting at American servicemembers and [at others] in the neighborhood. They’ve been a menace, to say the least.” And to suggest that we shouldn’t have to strike, “Remember,” he told Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill,” “that’s what George Bush thought when the Twin Towers came down. That’s what Roosevelt thought when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. That’s what we thought in World War I, ‘That’s not our problem.’”

It’s much less costly in lives and dollars, he underscored, “to hit them before they hit us.” But then, Cramer said, “I think you have to make [the case] over and over and over again, because our friends [in the] mainstream media are never going to tell that story.”

Perkins agreed, pointing to the run-up to World War II. “Had people actually listened to what Adolf Hitler was saying … his intentions were very clear, but yet no one wanted to act. And I do think it’s much easier in hindsight to say, ‘Well, we should have acted.’ And there’s a lot of criticism when people do act [from people saying], ‘We didn’t need to act.’” In this instance, the evidence was incredibly “strong.”

For now, the fate of the Middle East — and Israel especially — hangs in the balance. There will be no freedom in Iran, religious or otherwise, if the regime “ever comes back,” Graham stressed. “It’s a nightmare for Israel. We’re very close to finishing this regime off. Let’s finish them off if they don’t do a good deal.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEOS:

U.S. Vice President JD Vance: We have not reached an agreement with Iran

Iran’s New Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei Secretly Owns a £100M+ Luxury Empire in London

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Truth Matters in the Iran War — and Americans Aren’t Getting It

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Truth matters. Especially when a nation is at war.

Too often, however, the truth is the first casualty. Americans have seen this before. They are seeing it again.

I know this landscape. From inside the national security establishment, I watched from the Pentagon the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. A narrative hardened — Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an urgent, immediate threat. That narrative was false. The war it justified cost 4,418 American lives, another 31,994 wounded and trillions of dollars, and reshaped U.S. foreign policy for a generation.

That is not ancient history. That is institutional memory the United States is obligated to apply.

Let me be clear: Iran is not an innocent actor. For decades, Tehran has functioned as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, funding Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. I saw firsthand in Iraq how Iranian-backed forces killed hundreds of American service members. The regime is dangerous. I argued as much in Fox News Digital after Israel’s June 2025 strikes on Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan.

Recognizing a threat is not the same as justifying a war.

That is where the question of truth becomes central.

The Trump administration’s core case for attacking rested on the claim that Iran was racing toward a deployable nuclear weapon. The intelligence record is inconsistent with that claim. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 18, 2026, and when Senator Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) asked directly whether the intelligence community assessed Iran as posing an “imminent nuclear threat,” Director Gabbard deflected: “The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.” More striking, her written testimony stated Iran’s nuclear enrichment program had been “obliterated” after last year’s strikes and that there had been “no efforts” to rebuild it — language she omitted from her oral remarks. When pressed, she cited time constraints. That explanation raises more questions than it answers.

The intelligence community’s 2025 annual threat assessment said plainly that Iran was “not building a nuclear weapon.” Trump envoy Steve Witkoff told Fox News in February 2026 that Iran was “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.” Those two positions cannot both be correct. The American people deserve to know which one their government believed before launching this war.

I argued in Fox News last summer that while the June 2025 strikes inflicted significant damage on Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure, the program was not eliminated. That assessment has held. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed this past week that Iran retains the knowledge, the material, and the industrial capability to rebuild. Strikes can delay a program. They cannot erase the scientists, the expertise, or the dispersed uranium stockpile—much of it buried beyond the reach of any bomb in the American arsenal.

The role of allied intelligence in shaping this conflict also deserves honest examination. Israel is a close partner and, as I have argued before, a vital ally. But shared interests are not identical interests. Intelligence assessments from allied services have been wrong before—the lead-up to the Iraq War demonstrated that conclusively. Israeli concern about Iran’s nuclear trajectory clearly drove pressure for military action. Acknowledging that is not anti-Israel. It is pro-American. Our responsibility is to make decisions based on American national interests, independently evaluated.

The war itself is expanding in ways the administration’s opening statements did not anticipate. As I wrote for Fox News last week, the U.S.-Israeli air campaign has struck more than 15,000 targets, wrecked Iran’s navy, and reduced Tehran’s ballistic missile launches by 90%. Those are real battlefield achievements. But the Strait of Hormuz — the chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily oil supply moves — is now heavily restricted and actively contested, and oil has surged above $100 a barrel. Even as diplomacy is discussed publicly — including reports of a multi-point proposal from Washington — Iran denies that meaningful talks are underway. The precision munitions being consumed in this campaign will take years to replace. Every Tomahawk fired over Tehran is one less available for the Taiwan Strait.

Now the Pentagon is deploying two Marine Expeditionary Units to the region — the 31st MEU from Japan aboard USS Tripoli and a second unit from Camp Pendleton — placing roughly 4,700 Marines trained for amphibious assault within striking distance of Iranian coastal targets. In addition, elements of the 82nd Airborne Division — America’s rapid-response ground force —are now moving into the region, further expanding potential options beyond air and naval operations. The president says he is not putting troops on the ground. That may be true today. But the deployment of amphibious and airborne forces capable of seizing key terrain is not a symbolic move. It introduces exactly the contingency the president has repeatedly said he intends to avoid.

The war has been ongoing for nearly a month. The battlefield results are real. The strategy is not. Is the objective to degrade Iran’s military capability? Neutralize its nuclear program? Open the Strait? Force regime change? Each of those goals carries a different cost, a different timeline, and a different measure of success. The administration has not answered those questions publicly. Calling that “messaging” is too generous. It is opacity dressed in press briefings.

Military force can weaken a regime. It cannot govern the vacuum that follows. Strikes can destroy facilities. They cannot engineer political succession, resolve factional competition inside a fractured regime, or guarantee that what replaces the Islamic Republic serves American interests. I made that argument on Fox News last summer. Nothing in the past three weeks has changed it.

The American people are not getting a clear, honest account of what this war is for, what it will cost, or how it ends. They were not given that account in 2003, either. We have been down this road before. The obligation is not to walk it blindly again.

AUTHOR

Robert Maginnis

Robert Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, and the author of 14 books. His latest, “The New AI Cold War,” releases in April 2026.

RELATED ARTICLES:

America is Standing on the Right Side of History

Truth Matters in the Iran War — and Americans Aren’t Getting It

Iran’s Neighbors Beg U.S. Not to End War Yet: Expert

For Democrats, a Post-Trump Reckoning Awaits

RELATED VIDEO: Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu openly supports Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Iranian Aggression Angers Neighbors to Join U.S. Coalition

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The U.S. State Department on Monday urged American citizens to “depart now” from all 14 countries between Iran and Egypt as Iran expanded the scope of conflict with indiscriminate missile strikes on all its neighbors. But the strategy seems to have backfired by reminding a reluctant world just why the United States and Israel want to replace the rogue Iranian regime. “Many people in the Gulf woke up Saturday [angry] at the United States and Israel and went to sleep [angry] at Iran,” summarized Atlantic Council Director of Middle East Programs William Wechsler.

Iran has attacked nearly every neighbor to the west and south, enraging them in a conflict it could have limited to just Israel and the United States.

In Bahrain, Iran struck the Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown Manama, wounding two personnel with the Department of Defense, as well as an Amazon web center. In Kuwait, where Iran killed six U.S. servicemembers, an Iranian drone also crashed into the country’s main airport, injuring several employees. In Oman, Iranian drones hit a fuel tank at the Duqm commercial port, injuring one worker.

In Qatar, Iran targeted the Doha airport, the country’s LNG (liquefied natural gas) facilities, a power plant’s water tank, and another energy installation, leaving at least eight wounded. And these were only the known targets. On March 1, the Qatari defense ministry detected 65 ballistic missiles and 12 drones incoming from Iran in several waves, and it successfully intercepted all but two missiles and one drone, as well as shooting down two Iranian fighter jets that entered its airspace.

The United Arab Emirates, one of Iran’s closest neighbors, received the worst assault. Iran has directed 189 missiles and 941 drones at its territory, of which the UAE intercepted 175 missiles (another 13 fell into the sea) and 876 drones. Shrapnel from the destroyed ordnance resulted in three fatalities among three foreign workers employed at an Emirati port. The targets of these attacks included a warehouse at Al Salam Naval Base in Abu Dhabi, which hosts French forces, the U.S. consulate in Dubai, the Fairmont Palm Hotel in Dubai, Zayed International Airport, and two Amazon data centers. Shrapnel from intercepted projectiles also hit Dubai International Airport and the Burj Al Arab hotel.

Thus, Iran heavily targeted all the tiny nations around the Persian Gulf, but the rogue regime did not stop there. In Saudi Arabia, Iran targeted the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, as well as the Saudi kingdom’s largest oil refinery in two separate attacks. In Syria, a missile launched by Iran killed four after the new regime criticized Iran’s aggression but not the American assault. In Jordan, a “vital target” was attacked by a swarm of drones launched by an Iranian proxy militia in Iraq.

All these attacks grievously provoked Iran’s neighbors, who previously had little reason or inclination to tangle with Iran. On Sunday, the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman) called an emergency session where they pledged to “take all necessary measures to defend their security and stability and to protect their territories, citizens, and residents, including the option of responding to the aggression.”

“They want to fight,” President Donald Trump declared Monday. “They were going to be very little involved, and now they insist on being involved.”

The UAE, in particular, is contemplating military action after Iran fired more than 1,000 missiles at its territory. Its foreign ministry proclaimed that the “UAE retains its right to self-defense,” although it “has not taken any decision to alter its defensive posture in response to the repeated Iranian attacks.”

Qatar, too, was highly displeased. “All the red lines have already been crossed,” declared foreign ministry spokesman Majed al Ansari. “The attacks on our sovereignty are constant. There are attacks on infrastructure. There are attacks on our residential areas. And the effects of these attacks are very clear. When it comes to possible retaliation, all options are with our leadership. But we have to make it very clear that attacks like these will not go unanswered and cannot go unanswered.”

For now, Qatar has arrested two espionage cells of operatives from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including seven people who gathered intelligence and three assigned to conduct sabotage activities.

Even Pakistan, although not attacked by Iran, may become embroiled in the conflict due to a mutual defense pact it signed with Saudi Arabia in September.

These Arab nations have many options for siding with the U.S. against Iran that come short of engaging in acts of war with their larger neighbor. For example, they could allow American forces to use their bases for attacks on Iran, bringing American firepower closer to the target.

Now “that Iran has haphazardly struck the Gulf partners,” said retired Brigadier General John Teichert on “Washington Watch,” “not only are the Gulf partners defending themselves and potentially starting to be engaged in strike packages, but they are allowing our fighter aircraft to launch from their countries, which means that, instead of traveling a thousand miles to strike targets, they’re only traveling a couple hundred miles. And all of that mass of our capability is now starting to truly come to bear against the Iranian regime.”

A similar pattern was evident in the response of European nations. Originally, not even the United Kingdom would allow American forces based in its territory to participate in the attack. But, after Iran attacked a Kuwaiti air base used by Italy, an Emirati naval base used by France, and even a British air base in Cyprus, European powers reversed course, with the U.K. allowing the U.S. to use its bases, France declaring itself ready to defend the Gulf countries, and tiny Greece sending forces to defend Cyprus. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen even called for regime change, saying “a credible transition in Iran is urgently needed.”

One outlier is Spain, which still refuses to let the U.S. attack Iran from its military bases. In addition, France has agreed to work with China on de-escalating the conflict with Iran, which is a bit like the anti-Semites calling for a “ceasefire now” on the day after Hamas’s October 7 attack. The only thing “de-escalation” will achieve right now is saving the Islamist regime from internal overthrow — an outcome that is strange for ultra-secular France to seek.

Another outlier is Turkey, the only NATO member whose land area crosses into Asia. Yet, as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan increasingly radicalizes the nation in an imperial, Islamic, and anti-Israel ideology, the nation looks more and more like Iran and less and less like a U.S. ally, even to the point of hosting Hamas terrorists. Erdogan declared himself “saddened to learn of the passing of Iran’s Supreme Leader” and criticized the U.S. attack as a “clear violation of international law.”

Despite hosting U.S. bases and holding a land border with Iran, Turkey managed to avoid any incoming ordnance from Iran over the first several days. By Wednesday, some articles began to notice Turkey’s apparent immunity. Hours later, NATO air defenses intercepted a missile that crossed over Iraq and Syria into Turkish airspace.

Whether the Iranian attack on Turkey was an expansion of its aggression or an attempt to help Turkey cover its attacks, the assault represented the most recent attack yet on the home territory of a NATO member country, potentially triggering the NATO treaty’s mutual defense articles.

“We condemn Iran’s targeting of Turkiye,” NATO spokeswoman Allison Hart said Wednesday. “NATO stands firmly with all Allies, including Turkiye, as Iran continues its indiscriminate attacks across the region. Our deterrence and defense posture remains strong across all domains, including when it comes to air and missile defense.”

Last Saturday, the U.S. and Israel could not even count on the support of close allies in their initial attack on Iran. Now, Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on civilian and infrastructure targets in nearly all the neighboring countries have turned the region against it, reminding even Arab nations that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a bad actor. The result appears to be uniting these Arab nations on the side of Israel and the United States and against Iran, a result that would have been unthinkable even several years ago.

In brief, Iran’s retaliatory attacks on all its neighbors have made Operation Epic Fury much easier for the United States, a best-case scenario for the Trump administration it could hardly have predicted.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Purim Repeat: Israel Turns the Tables on Persian Ruler Who Sought Their Annihilation

South Sudan Teeters on the Brink of Civil War after Murderous Rampage

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Iranian Regime Is ‘Afraid of Its Own People, Afraid of Losing Power, and Afraid of Trump’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

There aren’t many pictures slipping through the iron fist of Iran, but there are enough. What the world has seen in the ashen streets and smoldering buildings tells the story of unhinged terror and revenge. An emotional image of dozens of shoes, thrown haphazardly against a wall, feels like the last witness to whatever horrors happened there. “At the Holocaust Museum in Washington, there is a room filled with shoes,” Arash Sigarchi posts emotionally. “Now look.” This is all that remains of so many unarmed Iranians, he laments, “whose only demand was freedom.”

While videos continue to trickle out of the carnage after days of protests and state-sponsored violence, no one is quite sure how bloody the uprising has actually been. After the regime froze the country’s internet, the death toll is said to be anywhere from 4,400 to quadruple that — leaving behind cities that look like charred previews of the apocalypse. Survivors paint a grisly picture of men and women burned alive or corralled into rings of fire and gunned down by the ayatollah’s men.

The massacres have triggered a wave of international urgency, as leaders of the U.N. Human Rights Council race to host an emergency session on Friday. President Donald Trump, for his part, has held off on a direct strike after extracting at least a temporary agreement from Iran not to murder more innocent people or carry out more mass executions. Even so, Trump did tease the idea of replacing Ayatollah Khamenei on Saturday, describing him as “a sick man who should run his country properly and stop killing people.” It’s time, he told Politico, “to look for new leadership in Iran.”

General Abolfazl Shekarchi, one of the nation’s spokesmen, countered with a warning of his own: “… [I]f any hand of aggression is extended toward our leader, we not only cut that hand, but also we will set fire to their world.”

As the standoff continues, the White House isn’t sitting idly by. Shipping trackers confirmed that the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier, is now headed to the Middle East, joined by a handful of guided missile destroyers. As the Associated Press points out, the region has been “without an aircraft carrier group or an amphibious ready group, likely complicating any discussion of a military operation targeting Iran given Gulf Arab states’ broad opposition to such an attack.”

Gregg Roman, executive director of the Middle East Forum, agreed that this is all part of the pressure Trump is building on the regime. “I think you have to have at least two aircraft carriers in the region. You have to have at least 10 to 12 destroyers which help Israel and U.S. allies and U.S. bases in the region with an anti-missile defense shield like we had back in June. I think you need to have special operators who are on the ground, ready to extricate any American pilots that may be shot down. And frankly,” he added on Monday’s “Washington Watch,” “this is not being done without risk to the United States. … But President Trump is trying to create a situation in which the U.S. has maximum advantage. And if the Ayatollah continues with his repression of the Iranian people, and there is not a pathway to his removal from power, whether by hook or by crook, then we’ll see action over the skies of Iran, assisting the Iranian people…”

That doesn’t necessarily mean war is imminent, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reiterated to the BBC in the U.K. on Monday. “I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that, or any necessity of that,” he stressed. “We do want to encourage the flourishing of freedom, and I think this is a very welcome development. I think freedom-loving people around the world recognize that, and they’re applauding it and praying for the Iranians that they can continue this.”

That said, he continued, “the indiscriminate killing of innocent citizens and protesters is detestable” and “must be stopped.”

In a brief glimmer of hope for the Iranian people, who’ve been cut off from the world and hunted by their leaders, hackers managed to get by the regime’s blackout, interrupting the feed with footage “supporting the country’s exiled crown prince and calling on security forces to not ‘point your weapons at the people. Join the nation for the freedom of Iran,” the broadcast urged.

Mike Waltz, Trump’s ambassador to the U.N. and former member of the Army Special Forces, sat down with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins to express his disgust with the Iranian violence. “With the brutality that the regime has meted out on its own people, massive arrests by the U.N.’s own figure, up to 18,000 [have been] killed. Other international figures have it anywhere from 12,000 to 20,000 [casualties]. Regardless,” he emphasized, “this has been a massacre. The regime has used military-grade weapons and mowed down its own people. In addition to that, we’re seeing tens of thousands of arrests. It appears the executions that were imminent have stayed for a bit. And I think that’s in direct response to the regime being afraid of the potential actions President Trump could take. But we’re watching closely, and it is wholly unacceptable,” he argued. “And I made that point to the United Nations Security Council [and] called them out for their silence over the prior week…”

The other silence, a deafening one, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) underscored, is from the American Left. “All the people who are marching in the streets condemning the United States and condemning Israel are curiously silent now, when the Ayatollahs are massacring their own people,” he said. “On college campuses, where you had students living in tents, protesting their own country, protesting Israel, there are no encampments now,” Cotton said. “Nobody has seized campus buildings.” He shook his head at the hypocrisy. “It makes you think they weren’t focused on innocent lives, they were focused on attacking Israel and attacking the United States.”

Fortunately for Israel and Iran, America isn’t operating under Joe Biden’s strategy of weakness and avoidance. On the contrary, Waltz said, everything’s changed. “We remember an uprising under the Obama administration, the Green Movement, where, frankly, the administration and President Obama did next to nothing in response.” But President Trump, he was quick to point out, “is not a man of talk. He’s a man of action, number one. Number two, the second executive order he put in place was to reinstitute his maximum pressure campaign that had been lifted under the Biden administration.”

What does that mean? Well, Waltz explained, “the Iranian economy is not going to improve anytime soon. Their currency is tanking. They’re able to export less and less of their illegal oil. President Trump put the buyers of that oil and anything else coming from Iran on notice with another promise of additional tariffs. And we took out, at least for the foreseeable future, the Iranian nuclear threat,” he reminded people. “So, the regime is ultimately afraid. It’s afraid of its own people. It’s afraid of losing power. And it certainly is afraid of the potential action from President Trump.”

Another metric the ambassador is watching closely is Iran’s terror proxies, who Waltz suggests are the proof that what Trump is doing is working. The Houthis, Hezbollah, their militias in Iraq, and others “are complaining,” he noted. “[They] aren’t getting the plane loads of cash. And now Venezuela, as well, [isn’t] getting the plane loads of cash that they used to. And that means that the ‘terrorist trust fund’ that sits in Tehran is drying up,” he warned.

And for everybody out there saying, “Why do we care?” Waltz was quick to explain. “Look, the root of all evil comes out of this Iranian regime across the Middle East that has caused conflict after conflict. President Trump is focused on fundamental change. And first and foremost, it’s drying up the regime’s money that it’s used to fuel these wars all over the Middle East and the world.”

In the meantime, it’s clear what the Iranian people want and are willing to die for: freedom. “They continue to march. They continue to protest. They continue to turn out to fight against the regime,” Roman said with amazement. The entire nation is at a tipping point. And if the ayatollah doesn’t go, he warned, our president “will help push him along.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Iran And Cuba: Death Rattles And Birth Pangs

RELATED VIDEO: Reza Pahlavi’s message to the Islamic Republic: “You are an anti-Iranian criminals.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Official Responds To Daily Beast Article Dismissing Her As Mere ‘Beauty Salon Owner’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mora Namdar is responding to attacks on her qualifications after she was confirmed to a major role in the Trump administration.

The Daily Beast posted an article on Dec. 26 about Namdar’s appointment and confirmation with the headline, “Trump Hires Beauty Salon Owner to Decide Who to Ban From U.S.” In an exclusive interview with the Daily Caller, Namdar explained her involvement in the beauty business and what qualifies her for her new position.

“My career in policy really began, believe it or not, when I was a teen,” Namdar told the Caller, noting she started taking college classes at age 12. The daughter of Iranian immigrants, Namdar was raised in Dallas, Texas.

“I’ve always been academically inclined as my grandmother was a literature professor and I had a love of reading and books from a very young age,” she added.

Namdar told the Caller she was attending middle school in Texas where she was given the opportunity to take the SAT because she was excelling in school. Scoring better than most high schoolers, Namdar was invited to begin college classes at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

“One of the first college classes I took at 12 was Poli-Sci 101, and I just fell in love with it and knew that I was going to do probably law and probably policy from there on out, ” Namdar said, adding that she later attended SMU as undergraduate student.

“I did a double major, triple minor. So it’s Political Science, International Affairs, and minors in Philosophy, Fine Art and Human Rights,” she told the Caller, adding that she speaks fluent Farsi.

While at SMU, Namdar said that she helped start up the Human Rights department and was the inaugural graduate from the program.

Following the Sept. 11, 2000 terrorist attack on the United States, Namdar told the Caller her foreign policy beliefs took shape and inspired the next steps in her career.

“The ideas of peace through strength really were solidified for me, and that became a core tenet of my policy thinking and sort of policy analysis, and I carried that through with me to law school at American University, where I did a JD and MA concurrently,” Namdar told the Caller. “So the law degree, and then Master’s in International Affairs, and I started the National Security Law brief.”

The National Security Law Brief is the nation’s first student-run law school publication that “focuses on the rapidly evolving field of national security law.” Namdar’s writings for the publication caught the attention of the government, specifically a piece from 2011 titled “Deciphering the Iranian Paradox – It’s Not Left Wing, It’s Not Right Wing, It’s the Right Thing: No Engagement, No War, The Time Has Come to Support the Will of the Iranian People.”

“I pointed out that you have this anti-American regime in Iran, you have a pro-American population, and you have an opportunity to sort of do what’s best for national security and human rights concurrently, and it happens to align in the same way. And that got me first recruited into government,” she told the Caller.

Namdar went on to work for Voice of America as a special adviser on national security and policy for two years and then she established her own law firm as an attorney.

Prior to her confirmation as assistant secretary of state for consular affairs, Namdar served as the senior bureau official for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs where she supported “the Gaza Peace plan, Middle East stabilization, countering the Iranian regime’s malign influence, supporting human rights, promoting investment in America and American technology, promoting U.S. strategic messaging, internet freedom and more.”

In her new role, Namdar will oversee visa approvals and revocations as well as passport issuance. It’s a job she previously did during the first Trump administration on an interim basis.

While working as an attorney, Namdar started her beauty salon business, something she told the Caller she never expected to take off in the way it did. She realized there was a need for a chic place for professionals like herself to go and get their hair and makeup done with ease.

The business now has three locations and Namdar told the Caller she continued to run her law practice while growing the salon.

“It was a fun, creative side outlet from the very busy and very intense work that I was doing at my firm,” she told the Caller, adding that every part of the brand has been trademarked internationally.

Namdar told the Caller that she isn’t a licensed esthetician and has never been the one doing the beauty services at her salons.

“The implication there is you can only be good at one thing,” Namdar told the Caller of criticism related to her businesses. “So if you’re good at developing a business, then you should only be good at developing a business. If you’re good at policy, should only be good at policy. If you’re good at law, you’re only good at law. But I just don’t subscribe to that level of thinking.”

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLE: US Shuts Down ‘Performative’ Gaza Ceasefire At UN It Says ‘Legitimizes’ Hamas Narratives

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Two American Servicemen, Interpreter Killed In Syrian Attack, Pentagon Announces

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Two U.S. Army soldiers and an American civilian interpreter were killed in a Saturday attack in Syria, the Department of War announced.

Sean Parnell, chief spokesman for the Pentagon, announced the three deaths in a statement posted to X, adding that three others were wounded. The attack occurred as the U.S. soldiers were conducting a “key leader engagement,” Parnell stated.

The soldiers’ mission was “in support of on-going counter-ISIS/counter-terrorism operations in the region,” Parnell wrote. The attack occurred in an area Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa does not have control, Fox News reported, citing a Pentagon official.

“The soldiers’ names, as well as identifying information about their units, are being withheld until 24 hours after the next of kin notification,” he continued. “This attack is currently under active investigation.”

Today in Palmyra, Syria, two United States Army soldiers and one civilian U.S. interpreter were killed, and three were wounded.

The attack occurred as the soldiers were conducting a key leader engagement. Their mission was in support of on-going counter-ISIS / counter-terrorism…

— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW) December 13, 2025

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said in a Saturday statement posted on X that the “savage” who perpetrated the attack was “killed by partner forces.”

“Let it be known, if you target Americans — anywhere in the world — you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the U.S. will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you,” Hegseth wrote.

U.S. and Syrian forces came under attack Saturday amid a joint patrol near Palmyra, The New York Times reported, citing Syrian state news agency SANA. U.S. Central Command also confirmed the deaths in a Saturday X post, but noted additional updates about the incident will be provided as they become available.

President Trump responded to the attack on Truth Social:

We mourn the loss of three Great American Patriots in Syria, two soldiers, and one Civilian Interpreter. Likewise, we pray for the three injured soldiers who, it has just been confirmed, are doing well. This was an ISIS attack against the U.S., and Syria, in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them. The President of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, is extremely angry and disturbed by this attack. There will be very serious retaliation. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Editor’s note: This breaking news report was updated with new details.

AUTHOR

Ireland Owens

Reporter

RELATED ARTICLE: Hegseth Announces New Military Platform Dubbed ‘Future Of American Warfare’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

PERKINS: There Can Be No Peace If Terrorism Is Allowed to Flourish

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

In Matthew chapter 5, Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” If we are children of God, pursuing peace should be our default posture. As a nation founded on biblical principles and declaring our trust in God, America should likewise be a nation that seeks peace.

For that reason, I am grateful for the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to seek peace in regions long defined by conflict. But Scripture also makes clear that peace cannot exist apart from truth and righteousness. The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the Messiah and His kingdom, said, “The work of righteousness will be peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance forever” (Isaiah 32:17). The prophet Jeremiah, by contrast, warned of false peace built on deception: “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14).

Both Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were in Israel this month shoring up the president’s 20-point Gaza Peace Plan. Meanwhile, the Israeli Knesset took steps toward asserting sovereignty over more of Judea and Samaria. Secretary Rubio cautioned that the move could jeopardize the Gaza peace process. Vice President Vance responded that it was “a political stunt,” reaffirming that “the policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel.”

But let’s be clear: there will be no enduring peace in the Middle East so long as those who deny Israel’s right to exist are allowed to operate within her borders — harboring the illusion that terrorism and agitation will eventually yield them a state carved from the heart of Israel.

The term “West Bank” is itself a deceptive invention, coined by those who reject Israel’s legitimacy. The land’s biblical name is Judea and Samaria — nearly a quarter of Israel’s territory and the setting for roughly 80% of the events recorded in Scripture. Today, it is also a breeding ground for terror. Over the past two years, there have been 128 deadly attacks and more than 1,000 attempted or thwarted assaults in the Palestinian Authority-controlled areas of Judea and Samaria, which encompass about 40% of the region.

That violence is poised to intensify after Phase One of the peace plan, which traded 2,000 imprisoned terrorists for 20 remaining hostages, transferring those freed militants to Ramallah — the Palestinian Authority’s capital in Samaria.

History warns us: before the five wars with Hamas in Gaza came the First and Second Intifadas, both launched from Judea and Samaria and lasting more than a decade.

If Israel is to achieve even a managed peace, it must remove from its enemies the false hope of a Palestinian state within its God-given borders. The surest path to lasting stability is for Israel to fully exercise sovereignty over the land promised to her — a peace anchored not in illusion, but in truth and righteousness.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State Surges in Eastern Syria

Trump Builds Diplomatic Momentum Securing Peace, Trade Deals Ahead Of Looming Meeting With China

Scott Jennings Doesn’t Fall For CNN Host’s Attempt To Downplay Mamdani’s Picture With Terrorist Co-Conspirator

Hakeem Jeffries Finally Bends The Knee To Socialist Zohran Mamdani Ahead Of Early Voting

RELATED VIDEOS:

LIVE: JD Vance holds press conference in Israel

Fatah: ‘Don’t condemn armed struggle, we used it deliberately and strategically’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.