'Delayed courage': Trump tells allies to fend for themselves amid oil crisis



President Donald Trump told America's allies to fend for themselves as the Strait of Hormuz continues to constrain the world's oil supply.

Trump called on countries like the United Kingdom to either buy American oil or to "build up some delayed courage" and go into the strait themselves. Trump also said that he had already done all the dirty work, telling other countries they need to start relying on themselves rather than the United States.

'The upcoming days will be decisive.'

"All of those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you," Trump said in the Truth Social post Tuesday. "Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT."

"You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us," Trump said. "Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!"

RELATED: Trump issues grim threats against Iran if new, 'MORE REASONABLE' regime fails to strike a deal

Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images

Trump later called out another European ally for its lack of cooperation with the Iran strikes, warning that the United States will remember.

"The Country of France wouldn’t let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory," Trump said in a Truth Social post. "France has been VERY UNHELPFUL with respect to the 'Butcher of Iran,' who has been successfully eliminated! The U.S.A. will REMEMBER!!!"

RELATED: 'TOTAL RESOLUTION': Trump orders temporary suspension amid Iran peace talks

Oliver Contreras/Getty Images

The United States is officially on day 31 of the conflict with Iran, which is still within the four- to six-week timeline floated by Trump and members of the administration.

"Just one month in, only one month, we set the terms," Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said during a Tuesday press conference. "The upcoming days will be decisive. Iran knows that, and there's almost nothing they can military do about it."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump-Israel Dispute Raises Questions About Chain Of Command

'The United States knew nothing about this particular attack,' President Trump posted on Truth Social.

'Insulting and laughable': Trump administration slams Joe Kent's resignation protesting Iran strikes



President Donald Trump and his allies have come out in full force following Joe Kent's resignation as director of the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday.

Kent announced his unexpected resignation in a letter to Trump, citing concerns about the United States' military operation in Iran. Kent argued that Iran posed "no imminent threat" and that the United States was forced into the conflict on behalf of Israel, prompting backlash from the administration.

'He had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack.'

"As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives," Kent said in the letter.

Kent's resignation sent shock waves through the already fracturing MAGA world. Despite the outpouring of support from anti-war commentators, Kent was met with firm disapproval from Trump.

RELATED: Joe Kent resigns from Trump admin, says Israel forced US into Iran conflict

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

"I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security," Trump said in the Oval Office Tuesday. "Very weak on security. I didn't know him well, but I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy. But when I read his statement, I realized that it's a good thing that he's out because he said that Iran was not a threat."

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a much stronger statement, debunking many of Kent's statements she said were false.

"As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first," Leavitt said, pushing back on Kent's claim that Iran didn't pose an imminent threat. "This evidence was compiled from many sources and factors. President Trump would never make the decision to deploy military assets against a foreign adversary in a vacuum."

RELATED: Trump's hilarious response after intel reportedly tells him Iran's new supreme leader might be gay

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Leavitt went on to list Iran's offenses against the American people, citing its sponsorship of terrorism and nuclear ambitions. Leavitt also addressed Kent's claim that Israel forced the United States' hand in the conflict, calling the assertion "insulting and laughable."

"And finally, the absurd allegation that President Trump made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries, is both insulting and laughable," Leavitt said. "President Trump has been remarkably consistent and has said for DECADES that Iran can NEVER possess a nuclear weapon."

"As someone who actually witnesses President Trump's decision-making process on a daily basis, I can attest to the fact that he is always looking to do what's in the best interest of the United States of America — period. America First," she concluded.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

America First can’t survive an Iran quagmire



The Iran war risks becoming the classic Washington trap: Trade concrete domestic wins for an open-ended foreign project, then discover the home front slipped away while everyone watched the fireworks.

Over the weekend, the United States joined Israel in the opening salvo of what looked like an increasingly inevitable fight with Iran. Plenty of ink has already spilled over whether Donald Trump should pursue regime change abroad. The larger stakes sit at home. Trump began his second term with an all-out assault on the left and the permanent bureaucracy. Agencies were closed, and budgets were slashed. The border was secured, and deportations began. The early blitz of executive orders stunned progressives, but activist judges soon started tying the administration down. That reality demanded legislative victories

A successful Iran campaign could reshape the region. A failed or prolonged one could reshape American politics by handing Democrats a narrative of chaos and betrayal.

Congress has not delivered. Rather than spend months trying to whip spineless Republicans into motion, the White House shifted toward what it could do without them. Foreign policy offers that outlet. The result includes some impressive operations, including the capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. Iran, however, threatens to consume time, attention, and political capital that the domestic fight cannot spare.

Curtis Yarvin argues that the most valuable political win makes the next win easier. Power has momentum. Winning in the right order matters more than checking items off an ideological list. Trump’s best early moves fit that logic. They did not merely satisfy the base. They changed the battlefield.

The point is not isolation. America has enemies, and presidents sometimes must use force. The point is sequencing. Domestic consolidation makes foreign action cheaper and safer. A secure border, a disciplined bureaucracy, and election rules that prevent the left from gaming turnout strengthen deterrence.

They also insulate a president from war-party sabotage: leaks, lawsuits, and hearings meant to break public support. The same activists who file injunctions against deportations will file injunctions again against anything that smells like emergency authority. The same media class that demanded escalation yesterday will demand trials and timelines tomorrow. A president who has not locked down the home front fights with one hand tied, then gets blamed when the knot tightens.

Cutting the staff and budget of outfits like USAID and the Department of Education did more than signal hostility to the progressive project. It reduced the flow of money to Democratic patronage networks and throttled the institutions that launder liberal ideology into “expertise.” Closing the border and restarting deportations did more than satisfy a campaign promise. It slowed the importation of new dependents and future Democratic Party supporters. Even the executive order on birthright citizenship, whatever the courts decide, aims at the same long-term terrain: electoral math.

RELATED: The West’s forbidden truth: Ethnic cleansing is now official policy

Blaze Media Illustration

Those moves carried moral clarity and tactical advantage. Each win reduced the opposition’s resources and increased the odds of winning the next fight.

That strategy always faced a limit. Flooding the zone with executive action could only last until the legal system and the administrative state regrouped. Trump is not a dictator, no matter what progressive media claims. He needs laws. Without legislation, judges can block him, bureaucrats can slow-walk him, and the next president can reverse him with a pen.

Once the domestic agenda hit those constraints, the administration pivoted abroad to keep momentum. The question becomes whether momentum abroad strengthens the home front or drains it.

War burns political capital. Trump already took hits from the Epstein files mess and sloppy messaging around deportations. Governing by polls is foolish, but political victories still require public attention and pressure. A president can spend capital only if he has it. People love a winner. They also sour on leaders who appear distracted, trapped, or inconsistent.

Iran poses a special risk because it collides with Trump’s signature advantage: his break with Republican foreign adventurism. He rose by mocking George W. Bush’s regime-change fantasies as disaster. That stance enraged conservative orthodoxies, then remade them. Many pundits who cheered the Iraq War now treat regime change as a punchline largely because Trump made it respectable to say so.

Now Trump bets that the problem was not regime change itself, only its execution. Maybe he wins that bet. He deserves credit for successful strikes and bold operations. Yet the odds do not favor quick, clean wars, and Iran has a long history of swallowing neat plans.

Meanwhile, the domestic agenda needs hard wins that only Congress can supply. The SAVE Act offers the perfect example of a victory that makes the next victory easier. Voter ID is moral and common sense. It enjoys broad support. It constrains the fraud Democrats exploit. It makes every future election easier for Republicans to win. Yet GOP legislators cannot push it across the finish line. The Senate wastes time on performative votes and pageant nonsense. Caligula’s horse starts to look like a personnel upgrade.

RELATED: The commonsense case for nationalizing US elections

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

This imbalance matters because foreign policy creates durable facts, while executive-only domestic wins remain reversible. A successful Iran campaign could reshape the region. A failed or prolonged one could reshape American politics by handing Democrats a narrative of chaos and betrayal. Either way, the clock keeps ticking at home.

If Democrats win the midterms, impeachment and investigations begin immediately. If progressives win the next presidential election, the border reopens, amnesty returns, and the Department of Education fills up again with ideological enforcers. Iran is a brutal regime, but its nuclear program took a major blow last summer. Breathing room existed. The administration should have used it to lock in domestic gains.

Now Trump is committed. That makes speed decisive. A timely victory abroad could preserve the president’s image as a winner while he pressures Congress to codify the domestic agenda. A drawn-out war will do the opposite: sap attention, fracture the coalition, and leave the home front legally vulnerable.

America First cannot survive as a permanent posture if domestic reforms remain temporary. The administration must stop letting foreign battles substitute for unfinished work at home. Win fast abroad if you must. Then come back, and finish the job in Washington.

‘We Are Just Getting Started’: Hegseth Signals Prolonged U.S. Commitment In Iran

Questions that remains unanswered are who will take control of Iran after all of its potential leaders or successors are dead, as Hegseth said? What would a governing coalition look like, would it be stable, and what are the conditions for ending U.S. involvement in another war in the Middle East?

Hegseth: ‘The War Department Will Not Be Distracted By Regime Change’

Hegseth outlined four top objectives for the National Defense Strategy, saying the 'so-called bipartisan consensus...is really just a euphemism for disastrous foreign policy.'

I Fought A War Against Radical Islamists Like The One New York Is About To Elect

Radical Islam has made its way into America. It is already here, and it is spreading. America cannot be consumed by it.

Trump’s punitive strike was precision, not permission for war



President Donald Trump made clear from the start: A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. But until just recently, few paid attention. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that while Iran had enriched a suspicious amount of uranium, it lacked a viable weapons program — let alone a bomb.

At the same time, left-wing agitators tried to spread immigration riots from Los Angeles to the rest of the country. Trump stayed focused on the domestic agenda his voters demanded. Israel’s sudden strike on Iran threatened to drag the United States into another foreign war — and derail Trump’s progress at home.

Trump knows his voters support a strong defense — but they’re tired of wasting American blood and treasure to fight foreign wars while their country falls apart at home.

Now that the U.S. has carried out a precision strike and set back Iran’s nuclear program, it’s time for Trump to return his full attention to rescuing America from Joe Biden’s open-border catastrophe.

Every presidency races against time, political capital, and public attention. Trump understood from the outset how easily foreign entanglements — especially in the Middle East — can swallow an administration.

That’s one reason the MAGA base remains loyal: Trump prioritizes domestic issues most presidents ignore while playing global policeman. Even while negotiating with Iran, Trump kept his focus on immigration. He battled leftist protesters and rogue judges at home, while keeping one eye on foreign threats.

But nearly two years after the terrorist attacks on October 7, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw the window for war with Iran closing. Israel launched initial strikes on June 13 without American approval. Supporters insisted Israel could finish the job alone.

That was welcome news to Trump’s base, which feared any new conflict in the Middle East would derail his domestic policy blitz. But then the neoconservatives started moving the goalposts. Suddenly, it wasn’t just about airstrikes — it was about regime change.

Trump approved the use of U.S. bunker-buster bombs, believing them essential to destroy uranium enrichment sites buried deep in Iran’s mountains. U.S. forces entered and exited Iranian airspace without incident, delivering their payloads. Both sides issued conflicting reports about the strike’s effectiveness. But Trump clearly saw the operation as a means to reduce foreign policy pressure and pivot back to domestic priorities.

That pivot didn’t go as quickly as planned.

Israel and its allies quickly shifted from nuclear disarmament to full-blown regime change. Iran fired retaliatory missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar. While those strikes appeared calibrated to avoid casualties, tensions escalated.

Trump announced a ceasefire he had brokered between Iran and Israel. Both nations violated it within hours.

Netanyahu even defied Trump directly, ordering another strike while the president live-tweeted his demand for Israeli jets to turn back. They dropped their payloads anyway.

Frustrated, Trump told reporters Tuesday morning he was fed up with both countries. Israel, a close ally, had no interest in honoring its commitments. “Truth is, they have been fighting so long and so hard they don’t know what the f**k they’re doing. Do you understand that?” he said.

RELATED: It’s not a riot, it’s an invasion

Blaze Media Illustration

American and Israeli interests were never fully aligned. Israel wants regime change. It lacks the capability to do it alone. Americans don’t want a nuclear Iran, either, but they have no appetite for another long war.

Trump’s airstrike may have succeeded, but that won’t satisfy Netanyahu. He clearly hopes to drag Trump into a broader conflict.

Israel’s refusal to respect a ceasefire negotiated by its primary benefactor makes the next step obvious: walk away.

On Tuesday, Trump issued a flurry of social media posts calling for mass deportations. He got what he wanted in Iran. Now, he’s ready to exit.

Would Israel continue its push for regime change without U.S. support? Maybe. It’s time to find out. The U.S. shouldn’t fight another unpopular Middle East war for an ally that won’t keep its word.

In his farewell address after his first term, Trump listed avoiding war as one of his proudest achievements. He knows his voters support a strong defense — but they’re tired of wasting American blood and treasure to fight foreign wars while their country falls apart at home.

Republicans always promise domestic wins. They spend their political capital overseas. Trump’s first hundred days this term have been different. He’s delivered rapid-fire domestic victories. That’s where the focus belongs.

Americans don’t want more war in the Middle East — especially one waged on behalf of an ally that does not respect their president. Biden’s open-border nightmare still haunts the nation. Crime, poverty, trafficking, and collapsing infrastructure all stem from the ongoing invasion of illegal immigrants.

Whatever nuclear threat existed in Iran has been neutralized.

Now Trump must do the job he was elected to do — the job he wants to do.

Deport illegal aliens, finish the wall, and put America first.

Trump’s strike wasn’t an escalation — it was an exit



I was 4 years old when I watched President George W. Bush announce the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I was 24 when I reported on Joe Biden’s abysmal withdrawal from Afghanistan — a calamitous end to a 20-year war that had long passed its expiration date. So when reports began circulating last week about President Trump’s potential intervention in Iran, I sighed and thought, “Here we go again.” I imagined myself covering the withdrawal from this conflict near my retirement, decades from now.

But I’ve changed my mind.

Instead of plunging America into another endless conflict, Trump may have done the opposite: broken the cycle.

This is not Iraq. And if handled strategically, this may actually mark the end of the Middle East’s “forever wars.”

A reckoning long overdue

Iran has long been the destabilizing force in the region, a role that is the latest installment of the Middle East’s millennia-long conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslim political powers. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the ayatollahs’ regime has acted as the mother ship for Shia militias across the Sunni-majority Middle East — exporting revolution and arming sectarian militias with a reach far beyond its borders. From Yemen to Lebanon, Syria to Gaza, Iran’s fingerprints are everywhere.

Take the Houthis in Yemen. Once a marginal insurgent group, they’ve grown into a regional menace thanks entirely to Iranian funding, training, and weaponry. Their ongoing civil war against Yemen’s Sunni-majority government has displaced over 4 million people and created what the U.N. once called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Since late 2023, the Houthis have targeted commercial ships in the Red Sea, turning the Suez Canal — a trade route that handles 12% of global commerce — into a war zone. More than 100 attacks on shipping vessels since November have forced companies like Maersk to reroute, costing the global economy billions in total losses.

Then there’s Hezbollah, one of Iran’s most powerful and dangerous proxies. Formed in the 1980s in response to Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah wields more power in Lebanon than the government itself. The group effectively took control of the country in 2020, and with an arsenal of more than 150,000 rockets, it poses a constant threat to Israel’s northern border.

RELATED: DOD reveals stunning new details following Trump's attack on Iran

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

In Syria, Iran propped up the brutal Assad regime — a Shia-Alawite minority ruling over a Sunni majority — with militias, weapons, and intelligence. Iran’s efforts helped Assad stay in power through 13 years of civil war that has killed more than 500,000 people and displaced over 12 million.

Even Hamas, a Sunni terrorist group, receives Iranian support — not because of shared theology, but because of shared enemies. Iran funnels cash and weapons to Hamas under the guise of humanitarian aid, often routed through NGOs and U.N. agencies. The October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians was the culmination of Iran’s decades-long investment in Hamas’ terror infrastructure.

These are not isolated insurgencies. They are coordinated arms of the same regime — a regime that has finally grown vulnerable.

Iran is unraveling

Prior to the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend, Israel, with quiet support from regional players, had already begun dismantling Tehran’s web of influence.

In the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, Israel has severely degraded Hamas’ capabilities in Gaza. Hezbollah has largely retreated from southern Lebanon. Syrian opposition forces — backed by Sunni-majority Turkey and Israel — overthrew the Assad regime. Even the Houthis, while still active, are increasingly cut off from Iranian resupply and face growing international pushback.

Trump’s strategy is not a repeat of Bush’s “shock and awe.” It’s a two-pronged offensive — diplomatic and deterrent — that recognizes the new regional order.

The first prong is diplomacy. Trump has steadily strengthened ties with Iran’s Sunni rivals, particularly Saudi Arabia. While critics scoffed at Trump’s investment in the Abraham Accords and Gulf partnerships, those alliances now provide a bulwark against Iranian aggression. Trump’s recent meetings with Arab leaders, coupled with trillions of dollars in investment and tech cooperation, have strengthened America’s foothold in the region — and weakened Tehran’s.

In Syria, Trump’s engagement with the country’s transitional government — under close watch by human rights groups — signals a shift away from Iranian and Russian influence. If Syria falls out of Iran’s orbit, it will be the regime’s most significant strategic loss in a decade.

Then came the second prong: deterrence. After five fruitless rounds of nuclear negotiations, Iran had to choose: Disarm or wait for Israel to strike. If the latter, then perhaps its allies would rally to arms while the regime could maintain its honor.

The mullahs miscalculated. With weakened proxies, overthrown regional allies, and a preoccupied Russia, Iran resorted to threats over disarmament — warranting U.S. intervention.

The strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure weren’t an opening salvo in a new war; they were a final warning. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted, “Mr. Trump gave Iran every chance to resolve this peacefully. ... Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted a bomb more than peace."

Iran has begun to retaliate, launching strikes against U.S. bases in Iraq and Qatar on Monday. Maybe the retaliations will expand deeper into its Sunni neighborhood. Unlike previous decades, however, Iran no longer enjoys a regional support network strong enough to wage a multifront war. Russia, bogged down in Ukraine, has no capacity to assist. China, facing economic turmoil, is unlikely to risk its global partnerships. And the Arab world — long terrorized by Iran’s militias — is unlikely to intervene on its behalf.

An end to the ‘forever war’

Instead of plunging America into another endless conflict, Trump may have done the opposite and broken the cycle. By incapacitating Iran’s proxies, isolating the regime diplomatically, and demonstrating military resolve, he’s created a narrow but real path toward a more stable Middle East.

We’re not entering a forever war. We may finally be exiting one. Trump has proven to be the least interventionist president in recent decades, and by standing firm against Iran, he has proven that his anti-interventionism actually means something — it has teeth, and it’s not afraid to bite.

Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way



After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.

That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.

But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.

Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.

Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.

From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.

They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.

“America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.

Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.

In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.

He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

Blaze Media Illustration

Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.

Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.

So which is it?

Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?

Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.

Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.

Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.

Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.

Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.

These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.

Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.

So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.