This piece argues that military moves in the Middle East are risky but sometimes necessary, examines recent comments about control over Iran, and looks at the political consequences inside the United States.
Kurt Schlichter is back for another episode of his “Unredacted” podcast! Become a VIP member today to get exclusive access to Kurt’s weekly VIP column, the Stream of Kurtiousness video series, and, of course, this VIP podcast! All uncensored! Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
Senator Chris Murphy has been loudly claiming that former President Trump has lost control in Iran, and that line has drawn pushback from conservatives who see it as flatly wrong. That kind of statement lands easily in media cycles because too many outlets treat alarmist takes as news instead of spin. When influential figures speak with certainty about a chaotic situation, it matters that their claims be tested rather than amplified without pushback.
At the end of the day, Trump will get regime change in Iran. Saying it bluntly may shock some people, but supporters view decisive outcomes as the point of applying pressure and force where necessary. The debate isn’t abstract; it revolves around whether America can and should force a strategic shift in Tehran through coordinated military and economic pressure while managing the second- and third-order consequences.
We are in the second stage of this war and need to regain control of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint that affects global commerce and energy markets. The tactical aim is straightforward: secure maritime freedom, protect allied shipping, and remove Iran’s capacity to threaten critical sea lanes. That objective comes with real operational risk, so planners must keep contingency options and clear rules of engagement to limit escalation.
Yes, oil prices have gone up, and Democrats are disingenuously attacking Trump for it, but I expect them to come down quickly. Short-term market spikes follow uncertainty, but a credible campaign that stabilizes the region and opens shipping lanes again should ease prices. Critics who focus only on headline fuel numbers ignore how restoring stability would blunt inflationary pressure and reassure markets over the medium term.
If America ends this 50-year problem with Iran, it will be a political victory for Republicans, because voters reward sustained success on national security more than empty rhetoric. For many conservatives, taking the hard steps now will be framed as finishing what decades of weak policies failed to accomplish. That kind of outcome reshapes the political map, especially if it realigns regional power and secures energy flows that matter to everyday Americans.
Democrats are trying to drive a wedge within Trump’s support, but MAGA supports this war overwhelmingly, seeing it as the kind of decisive action their movement prizes. The internal politics are messy: some moderates worry about costs, while the base prizes results and strength. Winning this argument at home requires clear messaging about objectives, costs, and how military steps serve long-term American interests rather than partisan theater.
Military action is always a risk, and the honest case for force must acknowledge that reality instead of pretending otherwise. Risk management means calibrated actions, sustainable political will, and robust planning for aftermath scenarios, including reconstruction, sanctions enforcement, and regional diplomacy. If the United States pursues a hard line, it should do so with a plan that minimizes blowback while maximizing strategic gains, because voters and allies will judge success by the stability left behind rather than the spectacle of strikes alone.
