There has been significant debate on both the Republican and Democrat sides about whether the joint U.S.–Israel military operation targeting Iran’s strategic assets was necessary. Some conservatives argue that the operation risks escalation and contradicts an America First foreign policy. Some Democrats claim the action was reckless or destabilizing.

I disagree with both objections. My support for this operation rests on a simple conclusion: neutralizing the Islamic Republic’s military capacity directly protects the American people.

I am America First. That principle guides how I evaluate any foreign policy decision. I do not support military action to defend abstract international norms or to engage in open-ended nation-building. I support military action only when it advances American security.

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has formally defined the United States as its primary enemy. Iranian officials routinely call America the “Great Satan” and lead public chants of “Death to America.” When a government embeds anti-American hostility into its state ideology and spends decades operationalizing that hostility, the United States cannot dismiss those declarations as mere rhetoric.

Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It funds and arms Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. Iranian-supplied weapons have killed American service members. Iranian-backed groups have targeted U.S. bases, diplomats, and naval vessels hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

Public discussion often focuses narrowly on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The nuclear threat is serious, but it is not the only danger. Iran has developed one of the largest ballistic missile arsenals in the Middle East. It has invested heavily in drone warfare and asymmetric naval capabilities in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically significant waterways.

A regime that combines ideological hostility toward the United States with expanding missile and maritime capabilities poses a direct threat to American interests.

For years, successive administrations attempted negotiations. The Islamic Republic, however, has never demonstrated a willingness to fundamentally compromise on its strategic objectives. It seeks time, leverage, and regional dominance. Waiting indefinitely while Iran strengthens its military posture is strategic negligence.

Degrading Iran’s military infrastructure reduces its ability to threaten U.S. forces and allies. It signals that attacks carried out through proxies will carry consequences. It reestablishes deterrence in a region where American hesitation has often been interpreted as weakness.

At the same time, support for military action does not equate to support for indefinite occupation or imposed political transformation. If the Islamic Republic collapses, the future of Iran must be determined by the Iranian people. The United States should not install a leader or attempt to engineer a new government from Washington.

The failures of Iraq and Libya demonstrated the risks of American-led nation-building. The objective here should remain limited and clear: dismantle the regime’s capacity to threaten Americans.

If Iranians choose a different political path, that decision belongs to them. America’s interest does not lie in selecting Iran’s next ruler. America’s responsibility is to ensure that no regime in Tehran retains the capacity or intent to target American lives.

An America First policy requires prioritizing American security above all else. Neutralizing a regime that has spent decades funding terrorism against Americans and building military systems designed to confront the United States aligns directly with that principle.