SCROLL DOWN this column for two very different takes on the US and Israel’s war on Iran, from Contributing Pundit Rich Corbett and Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay.
Operation Epic Fury: Strength in Defense of the Free World
Commentary by Rich Corbett
Saturday’s headlines were historic but hardly shocking. A coordinated US and Israeli operation, reportedly targeting the heart of Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure, marks a decisive turning point in a decades-long confrontation with the Islamic regime in Tehran. The reported death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei underscores the magnitude of what just occurred.
Iran’s retaliatory missile launches toward Israeli and American military bases were predictable. The Iranian regime has always relied on escalation and intimidation. What may be different this time is the resolve of our side.
For years, successive administrations tried diplomacy, sanctions and strategic patience. According to statements from President Donald J. Trump, renewed efforts were made to negotiate constraints on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its sponsorship of regional terror networks. Those efforts failed, not because of Western intransigence, but because the regime in Tehran has never truly abandoned its revolutionary mission: Export extremism, threaten Israel and outlast the West.
There comes a point when negotiations become theater. When a regime chants “Death to America,” funds proxy militias across the Middle East, arms groups bent on Israel’s destruction, and continues advancing its nuclear capabilities, deterrence must replace dialogue.
Israel has lived under that threat for decades. No nation can be expected to tolerate a hostile power that openly calls for its elimination while working toward nuclear capability. The Jewish state’s right to defend itself is not merely a slogan; it is a moral and strategic imperative. The United States, as Israel’s closest ally and as a guarantor of broader regional stability, has a parallel responsibility.
This moment is sobering. Civilian casualties are tragic. The prospect of wider regional conflict is real. No serious observer celebrates war. But it is equally serious to acknowledge that peace built on illusion is not peace at all. A nuclear-armed Iran would not stabilize the region; it would ignite an arms race, embolden terror proxies and permanently destabilize global security.
There is also a deeper question at stake when it comes to the future of the Iranian people. For most of the past half-century, they have lived under a regime that suppresses dissent, jails critics and diverts national wealth to ideological warfare. Many Iranians have bravely protested at great personal cost. If this operation weakens the regime’s grip and opens space for reform or transformation, history may judge it as more than a military strike — it may be remembered as the beginning of a national reckoning.
Strength, when exercised reluctantly but decisively, can prevent far greater bloodshed. The United States and Israel did not seek this confrontation; they endured years of provocation and failed diplomacy before acting. In a dangerous world, credibility matters. When red lines are crossed without consequence, aggressors advance. When they are enforced, deterrence is restored.
The coming days will test resolve. Iran’s proxies may lash out. Global opinion will fracture. But the central truth remains: the free world cannot allow a regime committed to its destruction to obtain the ultimate weapon. If Operation Epic Fury signals that era is over, then however grave the moment feels, it may ultimately prove necessary.
Corbett is a contributing pundit to The Hustings.
•••
A Hat & a Tan Suit
Commentary by Stephen Macaulay
While the “what-aboutism” that tends to be used in Washington all too often to justify things that are of a questionable nature is itself questionable at most, let’s play that game for a moment.
What if Barack Obama, while president, wearing a baseball cap, posted a message on social media that said the US was going to war with Iran—as it was happening, in coordination with Israel?
How would that have gone over with not just Republicans, but Donald Trump?
And then, after taping that announcement, flew off to a golf resort.
How would Congress have reacted if he said: “The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war. But we're doing this, not for now. We're doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”
There is that word war.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution has it that “The Congress shall have Power. . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”*
The president doesn’t.
Historically presidents who have launched attacks against foreign actors have avoided the word war so as not to step on the toes of Congress (or at least the members of Congress who have actually read the copy of the Constitution that they carry around).
But let’s go back to the Obama what-aboutism.
What if, cap on head, he said to the Iranian people in his tape: “No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want, so let’s see how you respond.”
That’s right: Donald Trump said to the Iranian people that he is their president (“Now you have a president …).
So, who is he going to war on behalf of in Operation Epic Fury?
But he did say the mission is also meant to: “defend the American people by
eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”
Just what those “imminent threats” are, were not detailed.
Last June, after Operation Midnight Hammer, during which US military aircraft bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities (Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan), President Trump said: “Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”
So evidently that isn’t the source of “imminent threats.”
In his taped speech about the launch of Operation Epic Fury President Trump said:
“For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted ‘Death to America’ and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops and innocent people in many, many countries.”
Somehow something that has been going on for 47 years isn’t exactly “imminent.”
Back in August 2014 Obama held a press conference about the possibility of the US military going after ISIS in Syria. He wore a tan suit.** Then-US representative Peter King (R-NY) said the following day, "There's no way, I don't think, any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday. I mean, you have the world watching.” And he wasn’t the only critic of the sartorial choice.
A tan suit.
Only imagine a baseball hat.
In September 2014 the US — along with coalition partners including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Belgium, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, — launched Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIS in Syria.
Operation Inherent Resolve is winding down. On February 18, President Trump said he wants all US forces out of Syria within two months. Although major combat has been over since March 2019, there is continued insurgency, which led to Operation Hawkeye Strike, which was launched by the US on December 19, 2025, and has had strikes as recently as February 12.
Nothing goes quickly or easily in that part of the world and it would be more encouraging were there someone who seems both understanding and serious getting the US involved.
Again.
Operation Epic Fury may be over by the time you read this.
But the situation with Iran won’t be. Not for a long time.
==
*While the bombing of “drug” boats in the Caribbean and elsewhere seems to have dropped out of the news, US Southern Command is still at it. Interestingly, the prepositional phrase in the Constitution that precedes the one about war reads: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guess Congress doesn’t seem to want to take up that responsibility, either.
**In 2009 Obama was criticized by the likes of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham for ordering a hamburger with spicy mustard. As Ingraham called him out: What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup, but Dijon mustard?” Certainly not the kind of man who is so vain as to wear a baseball cap because he’s losing his hair and probably didn’t have time to have a hairdresser make it look like there is more than is actually there.
Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.