WATCH: How We Predicted the Time, Place, and Day of the Strikes on IranThere has been significant debate on both the Republican and Democrat sides about whether the joint U.S.–Israel operation targeting Iran’s military infrastructure was a necessary act of deterrence.Some conservatives argue the operation risks escalation and could pull the United States into another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict. Some Democrats claim the strikes were reckless or unauthorized.I disagree with both objections. Based on the strategic reality of Iran’s military posture and the regime’s long-standing conduct, I support the strikes.Iran is not a normal regional actor. The Islamic Republic has spent decades building a proxy network designed specifically to target American forces and U.S. allies.Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen are armed, trained, and financed by Tehran. Thousands of American service members have been killed by Iranian-supplied weapons. Allowing that infrastructure to expand without consequence invites further aggression.The nuclear issue cannot be separated from the military strikes. Iran has repeatedly pushed enrichment limits, restricted inspections, and advanced its ballistic missile capabilities. Even for those who support diplomatic engagement in theory, diplomacy requires leverage.Over the past decade, sanctions relief and negotiated pauses have not permanently halted Iran’s strategic ambitions.A regime that openly calls for the destruction of the Western world while expanding missile range cannot be treated as a contained threat.Senior Iranian officials have repeatedly referred to the United States as the “Great Satan” and called for the end of Western influence, framing hostility toward America as a core ideological principle.I am America First. I support American interests before those of any foreign nation. I would only support military action when it directly serves the security and national interests of the United States.When a regime openly chants “Death to America,” declares that the United States should be eliminated, and defines hostility toward America as central to its ideology, those statements cannot be dismissed as empty rhetoric. Repeated threats must eventually be taken seriously.Some argue Congress should have acted first. Constitutionally, Congress declares war. Historically, presidents of both parties have authorized targeted military operations without formal declarations when immediate threats were identified.The commander in chief is entrusted with national security decisions precisely because intelligence assessments and operational timelines do not always allow for extended legislative debate. This is not an expansion of authority unique to one administration; rather, it reflects longstanding executive power in limited strikes.There is also the argument that the American public does not want another conflict. That concern is understandable. After two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, skepticism is rational.However, strategic deterrence and full-scale occupation are not the same. Targeted strikes designed to dismantle specific capabilities differ fundamentally from regime-change nation-building campaigns.If regime change ultimately occurs, Iran’s future government should be decided by the Iranian people—not imposed by the United States. Regime change becomes destabilizing when America installs leadership from the outside.The administration has argued, including in cases such as Venezuela, that its role is not to engineer political outcomes but to support populations demanding change from within.As a conservative who prioritizes American national security, I view the strikes through a structural lens.The question is not whether conflict is undesirable. Conflict is always undesirable. The relevant question is whether failing to act would have strengthened a hostile regime’s ability to threaten U.S. forces, destabilize regional allies, and potentially acquire nuclear weapons. If the answer is yes, restraint becomes riskier than action.Iran’s leadership has consistently framed the United States as an adversary and has acted accordingly. When a regime spends decades preparing for confrontation, policymakers cannot assume deterrence will sustain itself. Deterrence requires credibility. Credibility requires action when red lines are crossed.Reasonable people can debate scope, oversight, and next steps. Those debates are healthy in a constitutional republic. But dismissing the strikes as reckless ignores the strategic context that produced them.I support the strikes not because I favor war, but because I favor preventing a far more dangerous balance of power in the Middle East. Allowing Iran to expand its military capabilities without a decisive response would not have reduced the risk of conflict. It would have postponed it under worse conditions.In matters of national security, delay is sometimes the most dangerous choice.The Patriot Perspective has recently switched its main platform from Rumble to YouTube, and we would greatly appreciate it if our old subscribers would subscribe to us there. [HERE]The post Why the U.S. Strike on Iran Was an America First Strategy appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.