
The Free Press

On Monday night, five days after Israel began its campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, Donald Trump took to Truth Social to declare: “IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” As of late Monday evening, Eastern time, he was flying back from the G7 summit and convening his National Security Council for a meeting. Earlier in the day, the president was speaking of the importance of a deal.
So: Which will it be?
The president now faces the biggest foreign policy decision of his second term: whether or not to join Israel in its efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program by force.
This moment raises fundamental questions: Does Iran pose a direct and serious enough threat to the United States to justify intervention? Is the prevention of a nuclear-armed Iran solely Israel’s concern, or does it constitute a vital American interest? Should the U.S. pursue further diplomatic engagement, or is military action inevitable?
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu told ABC News: “Today, it’s Tel Aviv. Tomorrow, it’s New York. Look, I understand ‘America First.’ I don’t understand ‘America Dead.’ ”
The question is whether the man who popularized “America First” agrees.
Today, we turn to two people who represent the two major schools of thought on the right when it comes to Iran: analysts Dan Caldwell and Simone Ledeen. Caldwell is a former senior adviser to U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps and the Iraq War, and belongs to the “restrainer” faction—a group skeptical of U.S. involvement in conflicts in the Middle East. Ledeen is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. She is a senior fellow at the Strauss Center for International Security and Law. And as you’ll see, she takes a different view.
Let’s get to it.
Dan Caldwell: To prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the U.S. must pursue a diplomatic solution, as President Trump was doing and still says he wants to do. Diplomacy is the most effective way to prevent Iran from nuclearization short of an incredibly costly war that would be unlikely to permanently dismantle the Iranian nuclear program (as Israeli national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi has admitted), unless it leads to an all-out invasion and occupation.
A vital national interest is something that is existential to our safety and economic prosperity, and therefore warrants the commitment of significant military resources and justifies the risk of major casualties and costs. In a resource-constrained environment, in which our military resources are severely depleted, a major war with Iran would distract from the true vital national interests at home and in other parts of the world, like China.
Simone Ledeen: Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is, in fact, in America’s vital interest. Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. Over many decades we have seen the regime arm, train, and equip proxy armies across the region that have attacked not just Israel but also the United States as well as many other regional partners. A nuclear Iran would only increase the threat and fuel a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which hopefully we agree is not in the U.S.’s long-term interest.
Unfortunately, diplomacy has limits. There are two parties that must be willing to negotiate for it to work. There is a difference between negotiation and capitulation, which seems to have been the desired outcome on the part of Tehran. They wanted President Trump to agree to allow enrichment, which he said many times that he was unwilling to do. In my view, this is not a serious negotiating position and ultimately showed the Israelis that further discussions were not going to lead to any material change.
While I agree that they are costly, military strikes have shown to set back—sometimes permanently—a country’s nuclear programs. Witness the Israeli strikes against Osirak (1981) and Syria (2007). Neither led to an all-out war. With respect to resource constraints: I agree this is an issue. That is why we should be supporting Israel to decisively handle this threat, so we can pivot to our nation’s primary pacing threat, China.
DC: I believe we should support Israel as well. In conjunction with the Gulf Arab states, it can form a security architecture that helps prevent the rise of a regional hegemon and keeps an external hegemon (i.e., China) from dominating the region. However, it is not in our interest to get directly involved in the current conflict, as it could drag the U.S. into a major war. I am sympathetic to Israel’s alarm over Tehran and understand why it would welcome American intervention. But there are times when U.S. and Israeli interests diverge.
Dan Caldwell: I am sympathetic to Israel’s alarm over Tehran and understand why it would welcome American intervention. But there are times when U.S. and Israeli interests diverge.
There are limits to diplomacy, but there are also limits to what military action can accomplish. The Osirak strike and the Syria strike are poor comparisons to what we are dealing with now. Iran’s program is more hardened, dispersed, and advanced. In fact, one of the reasons why diplomacy is difficult in this case is our own past military failures in Iraq, Syria, and especially Libya. The lesson that regimes like Iran drew from the Libya debacle, in particular, is that if you give up your WMD program, the West will still come after you. Unfortunately, there aren’t any easy solutions, militarily or diplomatically.
Insofar as Iran does pose a threat to the United States, it is in large part because of our 40,000 troops spread across the Middle East, many of whom are in bases that are highly exposed to potential attacks by Iran or its proxies. Even if those troops weren’t there, I still think a diplomatic solution would be preferable, but the risks would be substantially lower.
SL: We got here through failed policies, including military failures. The Biden administration’s appeasement of the regime and nonenforcement of the Iran sanctions that were squeezing the regime during the first Trump administration led us to this unhappy point in time. But here we are, Dan, and the current situation requires us to support Israel as it finishes the job. Doing as you suggest and withdrawing our forces from the region would clearly signal to U.S. adversaries that we will not support key partners when push comes to shove. That is a strategic nonstarter.
President Trump’s approach, at least in his first term, has been to integrate Iran policy into broader strategic alliance-building to build up partners and allies to counter Iran’s malign influence. He is really good at this, and during his first term was wildly successful with the Abraham Accords. An Israeli victory now will lead to an expansion of the Abraham Accords with more countries normalizing and bringing about a long-term peace.
The risk facing U.S. forces and personnel, not just from Iran but from its many regional proxies, is a grave concern. These proxies have, over many decades, killed American servicemen and women. Imagine how much worse it could all be with a nuclear Iran shooting ballistic missiles at civilian centers, and providing this technology to its regional surrogates.
DC: Our current posture in the Middle East, especially the troops in Iraq and Syria, actually benefits the Iranian regime. It gives them a way to cheaply punish us for our support of Israel, constrains our freedom of action because we need to factor in casualties in those places when conducting military planning, and allows the Iranians to blame our presence for broader governance failures in Iraq. This is where we will pay in American blood for any direct support of Israel.
Iranian retaliation for direct American involvement would likely involve drone and short-range missile attacks on lightly defended bases in Iraq and Syria (and in the Gulf states, if we launch operations from there). That could lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of casualties. It could push us further up the escalation ladder, which would cause the expenditure or destruction of more military equipment and munitions we need in more important theaters, like China. In the short term, it could spike global energy prices, undermining the progress President Trump has made in reducing inflation. In the long term, it could undo the progress made by the Abraham Accords and further destabilize the region. Admittedly, these are worst-case scenarios, but there is a risk all of this could happen if the U.S. gets directly involved.
Also: It is not confirmed that Iran was on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon prior to Israel’s strikes. Even the Israeli estimates demonstrate that Tehran was still months away from a bomb. Our own intelligence community, however imperfect it is, did not believe Iran was sprinting toward a bomb. Of course, uncertainty in and of itself around something like nuclear weapons is a major risk, but we should acknowledge this.
SL: We need to be very clear on this: The Iranian regime’s threat to American personnel, and American power, is not dependent on how many troops we have in the region, or whether we support Israel. This regime is driven by a quest for regional dominance based on its religious ideology. Hating us and wanting (and in some cases, succeeding) to kill us is part of the package. History has shown us—retreat doesn’t work with them.
Simone Ledeen: History has shown us—retreat doesn’t work with the Iranian regime.
They just view it as a weakness, as does the rest of the region. Let’s look at some examples:
(1) 1983 Beirut: Iranian terror proxy Hezbollah killed 241 Marines, predating future major regional U.S. deployments.
(2) 2011 Cafe Milano D.C.: Despite our Obama-era drawdowns in Iraq, Iran tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington, D.C.
(3) 2022–2023 assassination plots: The Iranian regime tried to assassinate former Trump administration officials on U.S. soil.
(4) 2023 Iranian cyberattacks on U.S. hospitals.
(5) 2019 Iran drone attack against a Saudi Arabian oil facility in Abqaiq spiked U.S. gas prices.
(6) 2024–2025 Houthi attacks against global shipping further raised costs of goods for Americans.
DC: Iran under the Shah and throughout its history has been trying to gain more dominance in the Middle East. That is not unique to the Islamic regime. If the current regime is replaced by another, it is likely that the new regime will continue to fight for dominance with its neighbors.
I fundamentally disagree that removing troops from exposed positions in the Middle East is a gift to the Iranians. In reality, it gives more room to maneuver if we ultimately decide to take action against Iran.
I am glad you brought up the Houthi campaign. If anything, it demonstrates how difficult a military campaign can be against an opponent that has been able to harden itself and prepare for protracted combat. Despite spending billions of dollars on fighting the Houthis since 2024, including significant strikes from B-2 bombers, they still possess the ability to launch cruise missiles and ballistic missiles against Israel. I think the other lesson from that campaign is this: The United States can cut deals with awful regimes. Trump cut a deal with the Houthis to end the fighting, and we can do the same with the Iranians.
SL: How embarrassing. Old-school Persia and its power plays have absolutely nothing to do with the murderous terror proxy chaos and nuclear insanity driven by this regime. Big difference.
Also, if you want to give the president “room to maneuver,” pulling 40,000 troops gives him fewer options. Why would you presume to do that? The Houthis are still able to shoot missiles because Iran supplies them with weapons, training, and cash—they’re not some invincible force. We have certainly degraded their capabilities, and are currently taking what I would call a tactical pause. We have seen over and over that only sustained military pressure keeps them in check. We need more force, not less. Without Iran, the Houthis are just another mountain tribe with a dream.
Simone Ledeen: Without Iran, the Houthis are just another mountain tribe with a dream.
Appeasement is escalatory. The more we surrender and appease, the more we embolden our enemies—not just the regime but across the globe.
DC: It is not embarrassing to point out the reality that Iran, as a consequence of its position in the region as a Shia country surrounded by Arabs and Sunnis primarily, is always going to be looking for ways to alter the balance of power in their favor. The Islamic regime, of course, adds a more radical and dangerous element to it. But let’s not forget: Iran’s nuclear and missile programs began under the Shah as a result of his quest for regional dominance and fears about Soviet communism. It is also why Israel, at key points, supported Iran both under the Shah and even the Islamic regime during the Iran-Iraq War because of the threats posed to them by radical Arab states like Iraq.
While I believe that it is not in America’s interest for Iran to get a nuclear bomb, it is also fundamentally not in our interest for us to become embroiled in yet another major conflict in the Middle East that could cost us thousands more lives, trillions more dollars, and distract us from more urgent priorities at home and abroad. We are lucky to have strong partners in the region that we can work through to check and contain Iran and allow us to pivot many of our forces out of the region. That isn’t abandonment. That is better leveraging partnerships. Ultimately, that was the opportunity created by the Abraham Accords, not more entanglement in a region that represents only about five percent of the world’s population and five percent of the GDP.
SL: You are engaged in propaganda. Since you want to compare the former Shah and the current regime, let’s get into that. The Shah was an autocrat, absolutely, but pro-Western and focused on regional stability. The current regime literally funds terrorism globally. Al-Qaeda senior leadership has been living in Iran for decades. If this were about Sunni-Shia tensions, why would Tehran be giving safe haven to radical Sunnis?
There is no moral equivalence. There is no strategic equivalence. Only willful ignorance or perhaps something darker. I would like to close with a note of gratitude and admiration for Israel and their war on behalf of Western civilization.
We want to know whose argument convinced you more. Vote below to let us know: