Defining Victory Over Iran

Trump isn’t compelled to end the Iran war on terms less favorable than he deems desirable. Why should he? 

J. Robert Smith | March 17, 2026

If you listen to Donald Trump’s critics, the president is all over the map in defining the Iran war’s endgame. To casual or biased observers, that seems the case. In public pronouncements, the president’s war aims have varied, covering everything from regime change, via popular uprisings -- which he called for -- to erasing Iran’s capacity to make nuclear weapons to eliminating the mullahs’ means of playing oil politics and instigating acts of terror. Or combinations thereof.

Last Friday, in an interview with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, when asked when the war would end, Trump said, “When I feel it in my bones.”

That comment drove Trump haters crazy. Don’t doubt that Trump made the claim in part to get under his detractors’ skin. Otherwise, the anti-Trumpers lack an appreciation of strategic and tactical ambiguity. Trump’s vagueness plays in both ways.

Gavin Newsom, the failed governor of California, mocked Trump’s statement in an X post. He displayed a photo of when Trump’s hand was bruised -- from shaking a lot of hands. Newsom suggested that the war was beating the president. Newsom is running for his party’s presidential nomination. His Trump dig was red meat thrown to Democrat voters.

Newsom never skips a chance to play the lightweight. In barely more than two weeks of conflict, the American and Israeli joint effort has achieved remarkable military dominance. Iran’s navy and air force have been rendered nil, for all intents and purposes. Its stockpiles of missiles and drones are depleted. Many were destroyed, along with critical launchers and a drone naval carrier, in waves of U.S. attacks. Iran has some capability left. Three cargo ships were struck in the Strait of Hormuz last week.

That’s why last Friday night Trump retaliated, ordering U.S. forces to pound Kharg Island military........

© American Thinker