What’s Next -- Funny thing about some of the coverage of the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities. Commentators claimed Donald Trump executed an amazing head-fake.
That is, on June 19 he said he would give Iran two weeks to come to the negotiating table.
Within two days — possibly before the name cards for the participants could be printed — the missiles flew with impactful consequences.
(Claims he made about “obliteration” are, not surprisingly, unfounded: on Monday (June 23) Israel attacked the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant. Was the facility mere smithereens, the Israelis wouldn’t have bothered.)
Ha! He tricked them, just as much of the media were tricked by the B-2’s flying west out of Missouri: Has Waze affected their ability to read maps?
Rather than a feint, isn’t it possible that Trump decided to pull the proverbial trigger on Saturday evening (Washington, DC, time) just because?
Is there any sense Trump has a plan vis-à-vis Iran?
Sure, he went to Truth Social almost immediately with his rants and threats. And the likes of Marco Rubio went on the Sunday shows mimicking his master.
As this is being written there are reports Iranian missiles are hitting US bases in the Middle East. Should this be a surprise?
And by the time you read this there will be more Truth Social bluster.
But will there be an articulation of what the US commitment is going to be? Claims about being at war with the Iranian nuclear program isn’t going to cut it.
What blood and treasure are we going to spend dealing with the Iranian regime?
This is not to question whether the attack should have taken place.
But it is to question whether Trump had something in mind before he put on a suit, slapped on a MAGA ball cap and went to the situation room Saturday evening. --Stephen Macaulay
Peace Through Strength -- The debate over whether to strike Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites is now behind us, as Tehran has suffered a significant setback in its pursuit of weapons-grade material. The United States military displayed impressive precision and professionalism in carrying out the orders of our ever-engaged commander-in-chief.
For many, the choice seemed binary: Either act decisively to prevent a nuclear Iran, or risk facing a far more dangerous regime emboldened by atomic leverage. Those of us who lived through the Cold War remember the constant threat of nuclear conflict — and the relief that followed the Soviet Union’s collapse. Unfortunately, the decades since have seen the rise of new nuclear threats, with Iran chief among them.
It is reasonable to hope that the recent B-2 strikes will not only stall Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also serve as a strong deterrent to its leadership — discouraging future aggression toward Israel, Western democracies, and continued support for terrorist proxies.
America cannot afford to project weakness. Under President Trump, the United States demonstrated a clear willingness to apply maximum pressure — politically, economically, and militarily — without rushing into prolonged entanglements. Critics may still call for restraint, but history shows that appeasement has rarely tempered radical regimes.
President Trump’s doctrine of peace through strength provided a strategic roadmap: one where America leads from a position of resolve, not retreat.
Avoiding war is always preferable. But ignoring Iran’s nuclear ambitions invites far greater peril. While some hesitate to act, President Trump understood that decisive leadership today can prevent the devastating conflicts of tomorrow. --Rich Corbett
Email your COMMENTS on the Israeli-Iran war and the United States’ bombing of nuclear sites in Iran, to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings – right or left, conservative or liberal, etc. – in the subject line.