Bombed Iran

Ayatollah Khamenei is dead. Airstrikes have killed the 86-year-old supreme leader of Iran, prompting a wide range of reactions both internationally and at home.

No friend of freedom should weep for Khamenei, a wicked dictator whose 37-year reign was marked by brutal crackdowns on dissenters, the fostering of Islamic extremism as the dominant form of government in the country, and stubborn conflict with America and its allies. This was an evil man, and the people of Iran would be better off with better leadership.

But that does not mean Khamenei will be succeeded by better leadership. The CIA’s assessment was that an equally rapacious figure would be likely to replace the ayatollah. One may hope that the people of Iran will rise up, overthrow the regime, and install a freer system. But if the previous 25 years of U.S. involvement in the Middle East are any lesson, American dreams of seeding democracy in the region often come up short.

Perhaps intervention-skeptical Americans—a significant faction of MAGA among them—would be reassured if they knew that President Donald Trump had a plan. Unfortunately, the president has offered very little justification for these strikes and has said practically nothing about what he expects to happen. War-weary voters drawn to Trump by his promise of “no new wars” and his rhetorical break from the Bush-era GOP’s neoconservatism must be feeling whiplash. Overthrowing Khamenei was a goal of Republicans like Dick Cheney, John McCain, and John Bolton—figures who Trump clashed with, insulted, and eventually marginalized. Yet now Trump is channeling Cheney like Luke Skywalker communing with Obi-Wan Kenobi’s ghost as he blows up the Death Star. Trump hated McCain, but it was McCain who was known for singing “Bomb Iran” to the tune of “Barbara Ann.”

Trump did not bother to consult Congress over this attack, and few people in the legislature seem to care. Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) continue to be virtually alone in even attempting to demand that their branch of government have a say.

Given all this, it shouldn’t surprising that even some dedicated defenders of Trump are manifesting mixed feelings about the attack. The Daily Wire‘s Matt Walsh, ordinarily a reliable backer of the president, warned MAGA to withhold its knee-jerk acquiescence to another regime-change war:

If you’re a proponent of this war, so be it. Make your case. But lecturing skeptics for not “trusting Trump” is the dumbest argument you could possibly make. It is perfectly reasonable for American to be skeptical of regime change wars in the Middle East. Trump himself was…

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 1, 2026

Appearing on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, Erik Prince expressed similar reservations. Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene—onetime allies of Trump who have broken with him over foreign policy and other issues—also sounded alarm bells.

It’s also impossible to avoid the conclusion that many conservative figures who have sided with Trump on this would have slammed a Democrat for taking similar actions. Trump has surrounded himself with political figures who routinely castigated foreign interventionism in the Middle East and elsewhere: Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and others. Trump himself once complained that then–President Barack Obama would attack Iran out of desperation. Look like that’s a bipartisan temptation.

Three U.S. troops have already been killed in retaliatory attacks by Iran. The soldiers had been deployed to Kuwait. The government did not immediately release additional details about their deaths, but Trump said in a statement that he had anticipated attacks on American service personnel abroad.

“And sadly, there will likely be more before it ends,” said Trump. “That’s the way it is. Likely be more, but we’ll do everything possible where that won’t be the case.”