Victor Davis Hanson: “People Have No Idea What Trump is About To Do in Iran…”

As the United States approaches the Memorial Day holiday, the strategic landscape surrounding Iran has reached a critical boiling point. After weeks of stalled negotiations, during which the regime in Tehran has leveraged the pause in hostilities to regroup and project a facade of strength, the consensus among veteran foreign policy observers is hardening: the period of “magnanimous patience” is nearing its end. Renowned historian and Hoover Institution fellow Victor Davis Hanson has delivered a stark, uncompromising assessment of the situation, warning that the U.S. is facing a “do-or-die” moment that requires a fundamental shift from diplomatic hedging to decisive, crippling military action.

The prevailing concern, shared by analysts and regional allies alike, is that a return to the status quo—or a treaty that leaves the Iranian regime wounded but intact—would be a generational strategic failure. With the Iranian economy buckling under the weight of a sustained blockade and the regime facing unprecedented internal dissent, the window to permanently neutralize the threat of a nuclear-armed, terror-sponsoring state is open, but only for a fleeting moment.

The False Security of the Negotiation Table

For weeks, the American public has watched as negotiations were extended far beyond their initially advertised timeline. Hanson argues that this delay has been a strategic gift to the Mullahs, who view the West’s reluctance to strike not as a gesture of goodwill, but as a lack of resolve.

The Reality of the Stall:

The Regrouping Gambit: The regime has used the lull in kinetic action to bolster its propaganda efforts, loudly claiming to possess thousands of concealed missiles and drone networks. This posturing is designed to terrify regional neighbors, particularly the UAE and Kuwait, into pressuring the U.S. to settle for a “wounded” Iranian state rather than a defunct one.

The Trap of Backsliding: Hanson’s core argument is that even if a treaty were signed today, it would be a paper exercise. The Iranian regime’s identity is constructed entirely through opposition to Western order; they have no structural or ideological incentive to adhere to any international agreement once the immediate military pressure is lifted.

The Cost of Inaction: Every day spent negotiating is a day the regime uses to rebuild its command-and-control structures. The military reality is that the regime’s conventional naval capability is already a relic of the past, leaving only their drone and missile apparatus as the primary threats to regional shipping.

The Blueprint for a Decisive Strike

If diplomacy fails to yield a verifiable outcome, Hanson outlines a surgical, yet overwhelming, military operation. The objective is not an “Afghan-style” occupation, but the systematic removal of the infrastructure that allows the regime to hold the global economy hostage.

The Tactical Execution:

Neutralizing the Straight of Hormuz: The immediate goal must be the total erasure of the tools used to threaten the Gulf. This involves the destruction of all mobile coastal missile batteries and the total elimination of the Iranian “swarm” boat fleet—the small, fast-attack vessels used to harass commercial traffic.

Economic Suffocation: Rather than striking the oil fields or pipelines, which could have unpredictable environmental and long-term economic consequences, Hanson proposes a surgical strike on the port facilities at Kharg Island. By disabling the piers, docks, and loading mechanisms, the regime would be prevented from exporting oil, effectively cutting off their primary source of revenue.

The Israeli/U.S. Division of Labor: A potential strategy involves leveraging the distinct capabilities of the U.S. and Israeli air forces. The U.S. can focus on overwhelming the military infrastructure, while the Israelis—with their deep, long-standing intelligence and operational focus—target the specific command-and-control nodes and nuclear research facilities. This synchronized effort could be accomplished in as little as 72 to 96 hours.

The Ideological Threat: A Regime Defined by Conflict

Perhaps the most significant error in the Western approach has been the assumption that the Iranian leadership acts like a rational, state-level actor interested in regional status. Hanson and other security analysts emphasize that the regime in Tehran defines itself through conflict.

Why Compromise is Impossible:

Conflict as Identity: Iran has spent 47 years building a state apparatus that requires external enemies to justify its internal repression. A government that hangs dissidents from cranes and brutally suppresses its own youth cannot be reconciled into a stable international order.

The Internal Split: Despite the regime’s efforts to draft new recruits and intimidate the population into submission, the reality is that the vast majority of the Iranian people are alienated from their leadership. The regime’s recent attempts to force recruits to the front lines are a sign of desperation, not strength.

The Danger of a “Wounded Animal”: Leaving the regime wounded but capable is the most dangerous scenario. It creates a state that is perpetually focused on revenge, utilizing its remaining resources to fund militias and terror campaigns across the globe to regain its lost prestige.

The Geopolitical Realignment: The Abraham Accords in Action

The most striking shift in the current crisis is the quiet, unified resolve among the moderate Arab states—the UAE, Bahrain, and the shifting factions within Saudi Arabia—to see the Iranian threat curtailed. For the first time in modern history, the interests of the moderate Arab world and the State of Israel are perfectly aligned.

A Unified Regional Front:

The End of the “Whipping Boy” Narrative: For years, the Iranian regime used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a convenient distraction from its own regional aggression. That narrative is failing. Today, the moderate Arab states view the Iranian-backed Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas networks as the primary threats to their own internal stability and economic development.

The Logic of Security: The Arab Gulf states possess significant air power, but they lack the operational wherewithal and the political inclination to single-handedly dismantle the Iranian regime. They are looking to the United States to finish the job that previous administrations left half-done.

The Necessity of Unmistakable Strength: The Gulf nations are watching the American calculation closely. They do not want empty guarantees; they want the tangible assurance that the “bully” across the water will no longer have the capacity to shut down the global oil supply.

The Moral Burden of Free Nations

At its core, the current standoff is a test of the Western will to survive. It is a reminder that peace is not an automatic state of being; it is a hard-won condition that must be defended by those who possess the strength to confront evil when it manifests.

The Necessity of Moral Confidence:

The Failure of “Slogan-Based” Diplomacy: The West has long operated under the delusion that peace is achieved through international summits and diplomatic slogans. This has proven to be a fatal miscalculation. Genuine stability only occurs when a superpower project is backed by the clear, unwavering willingness to use force if necessary.

Strength as a Preventative: Contrary to the belief that military action invites war, Hanson argues that strength prevents larger wars. When evil regimes realize that their aggressive moves will be met with overwhelming, targeted retaliation, they desist. When they sense hesitation, they advance.

The Responsibility of Leadership: The United States remains the central pillar of the international system. While it is understandable that any president would want to avoid the “mess” of a post-conflict environment, the alternative is far worse: a nuclear-armed regime that will eventually force the U.S. into a conflict that is 100 times more costly and more deadly than the one being avoided today.

Conclusion: The Path to Restoration

The “do-or-die” threshold described by Victor Davis Hanson is not a call for warmongering; it is a call for a strategic reality check. The world is watching to see if America has the capacity to distinguish between an adversary that can be negotiated with and a regime that must be dismantled.

The path forward—the path of precision strikes on Iranian military and economic command assets—is the only way to avoid a wider, more chaotic conflagration in the future. By dismantling the regime’s capacity to harass shipping lanes, by ending the threat of their nuclear program, and by empowering the voices of peace in the region, the United States has the opportunity to close this chapter of history with strength rather than a hollow treaty.

History is replete with examples of nations that waited too long, hoped for too much, and eventually paid a catastrophic price for their hesitation. America is currently in a position to rise above that cycle. With unmatched military assets, the support of a growing regional coalition, and the moral clarity to recognize the nature of the Iranian threat, the U.S. possesses everything it needs to resolve this problem decisively.

The question is no longer about the regime’s capabilities; it is entirely about the American will. As we move past the stalled negotiations and into the final phase of this crisis, let it be remembered that freedom is not an inheritance that sustains itself—it is a responsibility that must be defended in every generation. The Iranian regime has made its choice; it is now up to the United States to make its own.

Do you agree that the “restraint” currently being shown by the U.S. is a necessary part of battlefield shaping, or does the delay in action serve only to embolden the Iranian regime? Given the history of failed treaties and regional instability, do you support the call for a decisive, surgical military strike to end the regime’s ability to project power?