In the bewildering world of international politics, the narrative seems to twist more than a pretzel at a carnival. On one hand, they tell us Iran is but a blip on the radar—a minnow in a sea of geopolitical sharks. Friendless, isolated, and as harmless as a limp balloon. But wait! For weeks, the same experts insisted that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, painting a picture akin to a looming storm cloud. The irony is stark and almost comedic in its delivery. If Iran was such a threat, it seems a few days of decisive bombing turned them into a mere caricature, likened humorously to a blind, limbless tortoise stranded on the asphalt. Clearly, the narrative doesn’t hold water.

Now, let’s be reasonable here. The chatter slips into fantasy if they suggest Iran was on the verge of launching intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) or dabbling in nuclear weaponry targeted at the United States. Such claims would require a stretch of the imagination more dramatic than the latest Hollywood thriller. While Iran lacks confirmed ICBM capabilities targeting the U.S., there is evidence of Iran focusing on an indigenous nuclear capability and modernizing its military with advanced missile systems. Yet, here we are, in a world where what’s fashionable is to make grand assertions with little in the way of substance or facts.

The crystal ball of Middle Eastern politics is murky, and predicting the future is as reliable as counting wild geese flying south. As for President Trump’s actions—well—that’s another kettle of fish. Some might hesitate to judge too quickly, tapping foot patiently for the history books to unfold. Decisions like these ripple through time, and let’s be honest, pinning down the right or wrong of it can take years. Yet, history tends to clarify more than today’s pundits. Maybe Trump’s choice made the nation more secure, or perhaps it nudged the security barometer in the other direction. Or maybe, just maybe, it was a strategic masterpiece with no real pitfalls—only time will tell.

This episode is a master class in political theater. The dramatic flair with which progressives drummed up fear over Tehran’s so-called threat to national safety makes Shakespeare look like a mere comedy act. Yet, one might pause to consider the aftermath of those bombings. If the United States managed to rein in what some painted as an unruly wild card, it could signify a tactical win, a point on the board for decisive leadership. Conversely, if it backfires, we might find ourselves reflecting on lessons learned. It’s a tightrope walk of international diplomacy that draws critics to their keyboards with varying degrees of clarity and foresight.

One thing remains clear amid the fog of partisan shouting matches: a need for courage, clarity, and consistency. Conservatives can take heart in principles that prioritize strength and security, untinged by ever-changing stories. While progressive voices flip and flop, bending to the fickle winds of trending fears and assumptions, the bedrock of conservative thought stands firm. Faced with an international crisis or pondering the mundane, logic and tradition offer a sturdy compass. Let’s keep eyes forward and feet on the ground—a grounded path to sensible, enduring leadership.