It’s now or never for Trump and Netanyahu to crush Iran’s regime – WIN editorial

Trump and Netanyahu brought Iran to its knees but left the regime standing. Now, political upheaval in the U.S. and Israel threatens their last chance to finish the job.

By World Israel News Editorial Staff

As Republicans confront the consequences of Tuesday’s midterm bloodbath, Vice President JD Vance has offered a blunt explanation.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance declared Wednesday, blaming the conflict with Iran, rising living costs, and America’s relationship with Israel.

President Donald Trump acknowledged the war’s political toll but stood by his decision.

“If I had to do it again, I’d have to do it again because, long term, it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump declared.

Trump is absolutely right.

Confronting Iran was not a mistake. The mistake was allowing the regime to survive.

For nearly half a century, the Islamic Republic has spread terror, murdered Americans, armed terrorist armies, and openly pursued Israel’s destruction.

From Hezbollah and Hamas to the Houthis and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, Tehran has built an international network of terror responsible for countless innocent deaths.

Behind that machinery of destruction stands a regime that has spent decades advancing a nuclear program threatening Israel, the United States, and the wider world.

The military campaign against Iran was long overdue. American and Israeli forces inflicted devastating damage on the regime’s military infrastructure, leadership, and strategic capabilities.

Iran was on the ropes.

For the first time in decades, the possibility of ending the Islamic Republic’s reign of terror appeared within reach.

But instead of pressing their extraordinary military advantage, Washington repeatedly turned toward ceasefires and negotiations.

In July, Trump suspended American strikes to give diplomacy another chance. In August, he canceled a planned attack in which Israel was expected to participate, citing progress toward a deal with Tehran.

That diplomatic optimism failed to produce a lasting settlement.

Each pause gave the battered regime something it desperately needed: time to regroup, rebuild, and preserve its grip on power.

The United States and Israel pummeled Iran, pushed the regime onto the defensive, and then allowed it to stagger back to its feet.

Trump deserves enormous credit for confronting Iran. But he also bears responsibility for repeatedly interrupting the campaign before its strategic objective was achieved.

He understood that Iran could never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet his own diplomatic decisions helped preserve the very regime responsible for that threat.

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer captured the problem in his response to Vance.

“The problem was not the Iran War. It was the ceasefire,” Fleischer wrote.

“If you start a war, you need to win it and finish it – otherwise don’t start it.”

Fleischer argued that Washington squandered an opportunity to bring down the Iranian regime, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, restore oil flows, and support forces capable of building a different future for Iran.

Much of the criticism from the America First wing of the Republican Party has focused on the war’s immediate economic consequences: gasoline prices, inflation, grocery bills, and the enormous cost of military operations.

These concerns are legitimate. Americans have every right to question the price of another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

But those costs must be weighed against the potentially catastrophic price of allowing the Islamic Republic to recover, rebuild its military, and eventually acquire nuclear weapons.

What will America’s sacrifices have accomplished if the regime survives, rebuilds, and forces the United States and Israel to fight the same war again?

The Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions are not an isolated policy that can be permanently eliminated through temporary agreements. They are part of a revolutionary regime whose hostility toward Israel and the United States has defined its existence.

For Tehran’s rulers, hostility toward Israel is not merely a negotiating position. It is central to the regime’s revolutionary identity, reinforced through decades of military threats, terrorist sponsorship, and calls for Israel’s destruction.

Agreements may temporarily restrain the regime, and military strikes can destroy its facilities. But neither changes the ideology or leadership driving its ambitions.

The only lasting solution is the end of the Islamic Republic itself.

Destroying nuclear facilities can delay the threat. Replacing the Islamic Republic with a government that abandons its revolutionary ambitions offers the path to ending it.

A weakened Iran is not a defeated Iran.

And a regime that survives today’s confrontation may emerge tomorrow more determined, more ruthless, and more dangerous than before.

The tragedy is that the opportunity to prevent that outcome may now be disappearing.

In Washington, Democrats have captured both houses of Congress, fundamentally altering the political landscape.

Trump retains substantial constitutional authority as commander in chief. But congressional investigations, funding battles, and political opposition could make another major confrontation with Iran increasingly difficult.

Meanwhile, Vance and the America First faction opposing the war will feel emboldened by the Republican defeat, demanding an end to further military involvement.

In Jerusalem, Netanyahu faces his own political crisis.

Last week’s Israeli elections left his bloc with just 53 seats, eight short of a Knesset majority. Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot also failed to secure a governing majority, leaving Israel facing difficult coalition negotiations and the possibility of another election.

Netanyahu remains prime minister, but there is no guarantee that he will emerge from the political deadlock with a stable government.

For the first time since the campaign against Iran began, both leaders face the prospect of losing the political freedom to finish what they started.

Trump may find himself increasingly constrained by a hostile Congress and opposition within his own party. Netanyahu could lose his premiership altogether.

And Tehran knows it.

Iran’s leaders have every incentive to exploit political paralysis in Washington and Jerusalem, betting that domestic divisions and war fatigue will eventually force both governments to accept the regime’s survival.

Every additional round of inconclusive diplomacy risks allowing the regime to rebuild its missile forces, restore its nuclear capabilities, strengthen its terrorist proxies, and transform a devastating military defeat into a strategic escape.

The next confrontation could take place under far less favorable circumstances, against an enemy that has learned from its mistakes.

That would turn a historic opportunity into a historic failure.

Trump has demonstrated the courage to confront Iran despite the political consequences. Netanyahu has made preventing a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic one of the defining missions of his career.

Together, they have inflicted damage on the regime that once seemed unimaginable.

But military success is not the same as strategic victory.

The objective must now be unmistakable: ending the Islamic Republic and helping create the conditions for a government that no longer threatens Israel, America, or its own people.

Military pressure alone cannot guarantee that outcome. A lasting victory will also require supporting credible Iranian alternatives capable of replacing the regime and preventing the country from descending into chaos.

Regime change carries risks and uncertainties. But allowing the current regime to recover carries dangers that could last for generations.

Trump was right that confronting Iran was worth the political price.

Yet that price will be far harder to justify if the regime survives, rebuilds, and forces the United States and Israel to fight the same war again.

There may never be another opportunity like this one, with the same American president, the same Israeli prime minister, the same military coordination, and an Iranian regime so badly weakened.

The war was necessary. The sacrifices were justified. But the mission remains unfinished.

Trump was right to start the war. But he was wrong to repeatedly stop short of finishing it.

For Trump, Netanyahu, and the future of the Middle East, it is now or never.

Benjamin NetanyahuDonald TrumpIranIran nuclear threatIran warIranian regime changeJD VanceUS-Israel relations