The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last: ‘America Lost. Iran Won.’
Regional stability hinges on credible deterrence and strategic partnerships with key allies.
The Bulwark’s take assumes the only serious posture toward Iran is perpetual escalation, and that anything short of maximalist language equals defeat. That framing flatters the commentariat more than it protects the country. A presidency is not a cable panel, and national strategy is not graded on theatrical indignation.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Bulwark policy editor Mona Charen obviously wasn't impressed with President Donald Trump's address to the nation on Iran on Wednesday
Original source:
Read at TwitchyHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The Bulwark’s take assumes the only serious posture toward Iran is perpetual escalation, and that anything short of maximalist language equals defeat. That framing flatters the commentariat more than it protects the country. A presidency is not a cable panel, and national strategy is not graded on theatrical indignation.
What gets missed is the public’s demand for clear objectives, not open-ended conflict. Iran’s regime measures “winning” in chaos, proxies, and time. The right question is whether U.S. policy advances national security without sliding into another Middle East commitment that drains readiness and attention from bigger threats.
Conservatives are right to insist on credible deterrence and rule of law, including enforcing sanctions and protecting Americans. But credibility also requires institutional stability: Congress, the public, and allies must know what victory means.
The principle at stake is strategic clarity, not rhetorical satisfaction.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.