The article argues that decades of U.S. diplomacy with Iran have only allowed the Islamic Republic to buy time.
It says Trump’s maximum-pressure approach was the first serious effort to confront the regime directly.
The author claims Iran’s real power lies not only in its nuclear program, but also in its missiles, drones, proxies, and command structure.
It warns that limited strikes or weak negotiations would leave the regime intact and able to recover.
The article concludes that only a decisive strategy combining pressure, military action, and support for Iranian opposition can end the threat.

The text argues that Donald Trump’s decisiveness gives the U.S. a chance to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions more effectively.
It says airstrikes are a strong start but warns that prolonged conflict could raise energy prices and hurt public support.
The main goal, according to the text, should be denying Iran a nuclear weapon and neutralizing its enriched uranium stockpile.
It presents three paths: failed diplomacy, targeted ground operations near nuclear sites, or broader regime change with support for Iranian opposition groups.
The conclusion calls for a rapid, clear strategy combining U.S.-Israeli coordination, military pressure, and support for Iranians opposed to the regime.