The joint U.S.-Israel military operation against Iran has already been a "tremendous success," as President Trump explained this week: "they have no navy, they have no air force, they have no anti-aircraft equipment. It’s all been blown up. They have no radar. They have no telecommunications. And they have no leadership. It's all gone."
Trump didn’t say so out loud, but similarly and totally obliterated are whatever slim hopes the isolationist forces ever had of capturing Trump’s Republican Party. The isolationist-industrial complex might as well be at the bottom of the Gulf of Arabia along with the Iranian Navy, given how irrelevant and ineffective it has shown itself to be.
Don’t take it from me. Even the isolationists—sorry, the self-identified "restraint-oriented" camp, which I’d be more hesitant about describing shorthandedly as isolationist if they were less hesitant about slapping the "neocon" label on all the non-isolationists—are, basically, confessing as much.
One such character, Scott McConnell, wrote in a British magazine, the Spectator, under the headline, "I spent 25 years fighting neocons. Then Trump became one," "I’m glued to the news coming out of Iran. I’m experiencing some depression, as one might, upon realizing that much of what one has worked on for 25 years has suddenly gone up in smoke, destroyed when Donald Trump discovered he was pretty much a neocon after all … one can’t help but acknowledge the American right really likes bombing foreign countries, despite what had seemed an inexorable advance of right-leaning realist and restraint-oriented young foreign policy staffers and intellectuals who grew up or served during the Iraq war, and despite Trump’s successful effort to present himself as the ‘peace candidate’ and my enthusiasm for his endeavor."
Another such character, the director of defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, Justin Logan, told Politico, "I would characterize the current moment as one of fear and paralysis. … There’s also a group of people who had aspirations or have aspirations to go into the government, who are asking themselves whether they still want to do so, and who are biting their tongues while they figure out the answer to that question." The fear and paralysis he was apparently referring to wasn’t in Tehran but in places like the Cato Institute, the Orwellian-named Defense Priorities, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which really should be called the Quincy Institute for Irresponsible Statecraft, and their funders. The funders have invested millions of dollars and hours of time into trying to turn Republican foreign policy into some kind of cross between President Jimmy Carter at his weakest and Senator George McGovern’s 1972 campaign, which produced a 520 to 17 electoral college landslide for President Nixon.
Precisely how little traction this camp has was visible in the March 4 Senate vote on a resolution "to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress." The only Republican senator who voted for it was Rand Paul of Kentucky. The other 52 Republicans voted, essentially, to back Trump’s military action. That pretty much sums it up: one out of 53 Republican senators. Rand Paul is a son of Rep. Ron Paul, who ran for president as a libertarian in 1988 and endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992 and has been a longtime lonely extremist figure on national security matters.
You can parse the nuances within the isolationist camp. Some of them hate Israel, some of them just want less defense spending, some of them have business interests abroad in unfree countries, some of them are seriously and sincerely scarred by poor outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, it’s not even worth the bother. Just how thoroughly vanquished that side of the fight is was visible in a social media post recently from Trump, who posted "Rich Goldberg was GREAT on Mark Levin tonight. Two guys who really get it! Thank you both. President DJT." The reference was to Rich Goldberg of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who appeared March 7 on Mark Levin’s Fox News program.
Goldberg’s comments do make clear one subtle yet significant difference between the current military action against Iran and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is, as Goldberg put it, "we have an ally like Israel that is forward at a major threat to the United States that has the military hardware that we have provided over many years to ensure that they have the capability with our intelligence sharing level to go ahead and operationalize in this manner. I think we are seeing something for the history books playing out before our very eyes and it's going to not just shape the future of the U.S.-Israel security alliance. I think it's going to have to be replicated in other regions of the world where the United States and fellow democracies face big threats."
Trump and his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, also have been at times reticent to describe democracy as a goal of the current military effort. "I went through 20 years of those wars myself, worried about getting dragged in, worried about mission creep, worried about nation building or democracy expansion. That's never the perspective the president has pursued on this," Hegseth said this week.
Yet when Hugh Hewitt asked Trump on Jan. 8, 2026, if he had a message for the people of Iran, Trump said, "All I can say is you should, you should feel strongly about freedom. There’s nothing like freedom."
Israel, which Hegseth described as "a really strong partner in this effort," has been more direct and public about its goals. Netanyahu wrote March 10 in Farsi, "People of Iran, We are waging a historic war for freedom. This is an unparalleled opportunity for you to overthrow the Ayatollahs' regime and seize your freedom. Alongside the United States, we are striking the tyrants of Tehran harder than ever. … In the coming days, we will provide you with the conditions to take your destiny into your own hands. Your dreams will turn into reality. … When the time is right, and that time is rapidly approaching, we will pass the torch to you. Be ready to seize the moment!"
Ron Dermer, who helped write Natan Sharansky’s 2004 book The Case for Democracy, which helped to provide the ideological underpinnings for some of President George W. Bush’s choices, is, according to at least some Israeli press reports, back providing some advice to Netanyahu after having resigned in November 2025 as minister of strategic affairs.
If the "restraint" camp in Washington is depressed already, imagine what their reaction will be if and when freedom breaks out in Iran and the Islamic Republic is vanquished and replaced by a government that no longer threatens the region, America, and the Iranian people. The most brilliant, experienced, and eminent foreign-policy wise men—Walter Russell Mead, Daniel Pipes—all say it’s a less-than-likely outcome. In the end it will be up to the Iranians, not the U.S. or the Israelis. But we’re getting very close. My own bet is on freedom. Take it from the columnist who wrote "Khamenei Is a Dead Man Walking."
