President Trump and his administration have made it plain in recent days that they are weighing “very strong options” against the Iranian regime as mass anti-government protests and a brutal crackdown continue to convulse the country. Washington is reportedly looking at a range of responses—from targeted strikes to cyber operations and economic pressure—because the world cannot tolerate a regime that murders its own citizens with impunity. This moment, arriving on January 12–13, 2026, is dangerous precisely because rhetoric like “strong options” can become the prelude to open-ended military commitments if not tightly constrained by clear objectives.
Tehran has not taken the threat lightly; Iran’s foreign minister publicly declared the country “prepared” for war while also leaving a sliver of diplomatic wiggle room, a predictable posture for a regime that wants to look both tough at home and survivable abroad. That kind of bluster is meant to shore up domestic support and intimidate regional rivals, but it also raises the real risk of miscalculation that could draw Americans into a wider war. Conservatives who love America must understand the stakes: we should support freedom for Iranians without being dragged into another forever war that kills our kids and bankrupts our future.
At the same time, reliable reporting makes clear the White House is not currently planning to send American ground forces into Iran, and officials acknowledge the administration is trying to calibrate options that deliver pressure without triggering an escalation that hands Tehran a propaganda victory. That restraint is welcome and exactly the kind of prudence America needs—surgical pressure, not a quagmire. The responsible path is pressure and support for dissidents, paired with diplomatic muscle, not vanity bombing campaigns dreamed up by Washington insiders who cheer whenever jets roar.
But we cannot ignore the obvious: there’s a chorus of so-called foreign-policy hawks, some wearing the label “neocon,” who are positively giddy at the prospect of a fight with Iran, and that hawkish clique has long pushed the United States into costly interventions. Megyn Kelly’s recent conversation with Emily Jashinsky captured this dangerous split in our movement—patriots who want to protect American lives and liberty versus interventionists who seem to worship perpetual conflict. Conservatives should be leery of warmongers masquerading as patriots; their solutions invariably cost American blood and treasure while delivering chaos overseas.
Even on Capitol Hill there is pushback from Republican voices who know what endless wars do to families and budgets; Senator Chuck Grassley, for example, publicly said Americans “don’t want military action” in Iran, reflecting a broader skepticism among voters about another Middle East entanglement. That sentiment matters because this is a republic: the people and their representatives must demand clarity of purpose, narrow objectives, and a plan to actually get our troops home. Any president who bypasses that consent for an open-ended war will find conservative voters—and history—less than forgiving.
Patriots should cheer the Iranian people’s desire for freedom and condemn the regime’s brutality, but we must insist on an America First approach: defend our citizens, cripple hostile proxies and nuclear ambitions with precise, limited measures, and exhaust every non-military option before letting the generals loose. If the White House moves, Congress must be engaged, mission creep must be forbidden, and the press should stop romanticizing conflict as a solution to every geopolitical grievance. This is a time for resolve, not romance; for strategy, not spectacle; and for protecting the American people above the ambitions of neocon cheerleaders who think war is an answer rather than a last resort.
