For decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has posed one of the most enduring and serious threats to the national security of the United States.
Democrat administrations — particularly those led by former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden — have largely favored strategies centered on diplomacy and strategic restraint. These efforts, however, failed to prevent Iran from advancing its uranium enrichment program or expanding its regional influence through terrorist proxies.
Meanwhile, Iran gained access to billions of dollars through sanctions relief, further emboldening its ambitions.
In his first term, President Donald Trump adopted a fundamentally different approach: a doctrine of active deterrence. His strategy produced tangible outcomes.
Iran's economy contracted significantly, funding for its proxy networks diminished, and progress toward nuclear capability was disrupted. Trump's policy applied consistent pressure in order to compel behavioral change.
"President Trump has been the strongest supporter of Israel in both word and action, surpassing any other president in recent decades by confronting Iran directly," Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said in a private interview.
In contrast, Obama and Biden relied on diplomatic engagement that lacked enforceable consequences.
One of Obama's most consequential foreign policy missteps occurred during the 2009 Iranian Green Movement.
In response to a disputed presidential election, millions of Iranians took to the streets in protest. Rather than supporting the demonstrators, the Obama administration remained largely silent, prioritizing ongoing nuclear negotiations with the regime.
From the outset of his presidency, Obama sought a diplomatic agreement with Tehran. Openly supporting an uprising against the regime would have hindered that objective.
Throughout the protests, credible reports emerged detailing torture, sexual violence, and executions inside Tehran's Evin prison. Despite international concern, the administration refrained from even symbolic support.
Years later, Obama acknowledged that his failure to support the Green Movement was one of his greatest regrets.
"Ultimately, this is a decision for the Iranian people. A weakened Iran without nuclear capabilities is ripe for an uprising by its people, and the U.S. must publicly support Iranian dissidents," Lawler said.
The administration's misjudgment extended further.
In 2015, the United States, under Obama, finalized the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which granted Iran an estimated $180 billion in frozen assets. While the JCPOA imposed temporary limitations on uranium enrichment, it did not dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure or adequately regulate the program.
"We must never have a JCPOA 2.0. Any deal has to be a complete disarmament and end to their nuclear program with no uranium enrichment," Lawler said.
Furthermore, the agreement indirectly benefited Iran's network of regional terrorist organizations.
After the JCPOA's implementation, funding for groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis increased substantially. Critics of Republican leadership often cite concerns about fiscal policy or political rhetoric, but Republican administrations have not enabled the expansion of international terrorism.
In 2018, Trump formally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA and launched a "maximum pressure" campaign targeting the Iranian regime. His administration implemented over 1,500 sanctions on Iran's oil exports, financial institutions, military personnel, and shipping industry.
According to the World Bank, Iran's gross domestic product declined by 7.6% in 2018 and by an additional 6% in 2019. Inflation exceeded 50%, and the Iranian rial lost nearly 80% of its value.
These economic shocks led to widespread domestic unrest and anti-regime protests.
Upon assuming office, Biden reversed most elements of the Trump administration's Iran policy. Biden even sought to revive the JCPOA, despite Iran's continued uranium enrichment and deployment of advanced centrifuges.
"It was the Biden administration that weakened sanctions against Iran, particularly enforcement of secondary sanctions on those engaged in illicit oil trade with Iran — specifically China, which funded their terror proxy network, ballistic missiles, and nuclear ambitions," Lawler said.
Under Trump, Iran's oil exports have plummeted to approximately 150,000 barrels per day. Under Biden, exports had reached nearly 2.5 million barrels daily.
The resulting influx of revenue strengthened Iran's capacity to fund weapons development and proxy operations throughout the region.
Biden also discouraged Israel from carrying out preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, several progressive members of Congress categorically opposed the use of military force, even in direct response to Iranian aggression.
The recent airstrike on Iranian nuclear infrastructure by the Trump administration highlights the shift in strategic posture. Both Israeli and American intelligence sources confirmed that the operation inflicted structural damage and delayed Iran's enrichment timeline.
Originally, Israel launched an attack on Iran as a preemptive measure. Iran's leadership has repeatedly expressed intentions to destroy both Israel and the United States.
"Israel preemptively struck Iran's nuclear program because this is the constant threat they live under against their very existence. The United States will support them in this fight," Lawler said.
Under such conditions, targeting nuclear sites constitutes a rational act of self-defense.
Iran retaliated with extraordinary force. The regime launched over 1,000 ballistic and cruise missiles toward Israeli territory.
The targets included civilian areas, not merely military infrastructure. This constituted an act of terrorism aimed at population centers.
Unexpectedly, after U.S. involvement, Iran deescalated. A unilateral ceasefire was arranged between Israel and Iran.
Strategic signals from Trump — clear red lines and credible threats of military action — are to blame for the ceasefire. Trump's credible threats led to peace through strength.
Deterrence requires more than dialogue; it requires credibility.
When adversaries incur no costs for aggression, they escalate. When confronted with sustained pressure and the threat of force, they reconsider.
Trump understood this principle. Democrats abandoned it.
Gregory Lyakhov is a young advocate for Israel. His work has been published in the New York Post, The Jerusalem Post, and several other Jewish media outlets. He's also appeared on "Fox & Friends" to discuss key issues. Read More of Gregory Lyakhov's Reports — Here.