For decades, Iran has been a problem the United States refused to solve. On February 28, 2026, the Trump administration decided the time for half-measures was over.
Understanding why requires some honest history.
What Iran Has Been Doing
Iran’s nuclear program wasn’t a hypothetical threat. By early 2026, the country had accumulated over 10,000 kilograms of enriched uranium — enough material, according to weapons experts, to produce multiple nuclear devices. The IAEA had documented enrichment reaching near-weapons-grade levels. Iran had simultaneously refused to discuss its ballistic missile program or its funding of proxy militias responsible for killing American soldiers across Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
Three rounds of nuclear talks in early 2026 — in Muscat and Geneva — went nowhere. Iran’s delegation insisted on its “inalienable right” to enrich uranium while demanding full sanctions relief upfront. US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner reported back to President Trump that a deal was, in their words, “difficult if not impossible.” Iran was not negotiating in good faith. It was stalling.
Why the Decision Was Justified
The Trump administration faced a binary choice: accept a nuclear-armed Iran or act to prevent it.
A nuclear Iran doesn’t just threaten Israel. It triggers a proliferation cascade across the Middle East — Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt have all signaled they would pursue their own nuclear programs if Iran crosses the threshold. A nuclear Middle East is categorically more dangerous than any military conflict required to prevent it.
Trump made his position clear in the State of the Union: Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on his watch. That wasn’t bluster. It was a line drawn by someone who understands that credibility is the foundation of deterrence. When America draws a line and fails to hold it, adversaries everywhere take note.
The strikes on February 28 targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, military leadership, and missile production facilities. Supreme Leader Khamenei — the architect of Iran’s four-decade campaign against American interests — was killed. US Central Command has since struck over 6,000 military targets. Iran’s nuclear program, built over decades at enormous cost, has been devastated.
The Questions Conservatives Should Be Asking
Supporting the mission doesn’t mean abandoning conservative principles — it means applying them rigorously.
On war powers: Congress should be engaged. The Constitution grants war-making authority to the legislative branch, and even justified military action benefits from public deliberation and congressional accountability. The administration should welcome oversight, not resist it.
On cost: The Pentagon spent over $5 billion in munitions in the first two days alone — over $11 billion in the first week. These are real numbers that compound a national debt already exceeding $36 trillion. Fiscal conservatives are right to demand full transparency on the operation’s total cost.
On the endgame: Destroying Iran’s nuclear capability is a clear objective. But the administration owes the American people a plain answer on what comes next — how long US forces remain in the region, what the plan is for post-conflict Iran, and how we avoid the nation-building mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
On American lives: Seven service members have been killed. Approximately 140 wounded. Every one of those casualties deserves a mission with clear objectives and an achievable conclusion. The American people deserve honest answers on both.
Where Things Stand
Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has vowed continued retaliation. Iranian drones and missiles have struck Gulf infrastructure, disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and targeted US military assets across the region. The conflict is not over.
But the strategic picture has shifted decisively. Iran’s nuclear threat has been set back significantly. Its military leadership has been decimated. Its ability to project regional power is degraded in ways that will take years to rebuild.
The Trump administration made a hard call. The conservative view is that hard calls, made for the right reasons and executed with strength, are sometimes exactly what American leadership requires. Previous administrations — of both parties — repeatedly chose the easier path of delay, negotiation theater, and sanctions that Iran learned to absorb.
That approach gave us a more dangerous Iran. This one aims to give us a safer world.
Hold the mission accountable. Ask the hard questions. And recognize that protecting America sometimes demands more than strongly worded diplomacy.