Latest
Destroy the regime’s power without occupying Iran: A smarter war plan
The U.S.-Iran war has been underway for a month now. It is increasingly difficult to distinguish real strategic and military expertise from politicized opinion, speculation and narrative. Too many people jump immediately from where we are today to a full-scale ground invasion. They assume the only option is for U.S. forces to seize Tehran, secure nuclear material by force, destroy a supposed million-man army, and then get pulled into another decades-long nation-building effort or fight a Maoist-style insurgency. That is not analysis. That is shallow thinking rooted in outdated and often biased mental models of war.
President Trump has signaled a 10-day pause on strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, now extended to April 6. We are days into that timeline. But the real question is not what has been done. The real question is what options remain.
It is a given that CENTCOM and Israel will continue systematic attacks on Iran’s military system. Iran entered this war with thousands of ballistic missiles, hundreds of launchers, a dispersed drone enterprise, a layered naval capability in the Gulf, remnants of a nuclear enrichment program, and a military industrial base built for redundancy and survivability. That system is being destroyed. But it is not yet eliminated.
AI WAR IN IRAN HAS BROUGHT CONFLICT TO SILICON VALLEY. NO ONE IS READY
At the same time, Israel is targeting something far more important than just military capability. It is targeting the regime’s ability to rule once the bombs stop falling. That means hunting and eliminating political and military leadership. It means degrading the Basij, the regime’s internal enforcement arm. It means targeting checkpoints, intelligence nodes and internal security infrastructure.
This is not just tactical action. This is strategic pressure applied simultaneously against Iran’s means and its will. Its ability to fight and its ability to govern are being targeted at the same time. That is how you coerce behavior change without occupying a capital.
It is important to anchor any discussion in the stated strategic objectives. As articulated by senior U.S. leaders, the objectives of Operation Epic Fury are: destroy Iran’s missile arsenal and its ability to produce more, dismantle its navy and its ability to threaten global shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
While regime change has been mentioned and questions have been raised about whether it would be good or bad, it is not the declared U.S. objective. Behavior change is. The current regime has been given pathways, including diplomatic proposals, to alter its course. That matters because it shapes the options available. This is not about occupying Tehran. It is about paralyzing the regime, destroying its capabilities, and forcing it to accept new terms.
TRUMP VOWS TO HIT IRAN ‘VERY HARD’ AFTER OBLITERATING NEARLY ’90 PERCENT’ OF REGIME MISSILES
If the regime collapses under the combined weight of military pressure and its own economic fragility, the United States can still achieve its objectives in a fundamentally different strategic environment. But regime collapse is not required to succeed.
From here, the range of options expands, not contracts.
One option is to strike the regime’s economic center of gravity. Kharg Island handles roughly 85 to 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports, often between 1.5 and 2 million barrels per day. That oil is the regime’s primary source of hard currency. Seize it, disable it, or destroy export capacity, and you do not just hurt the economy. You paralyze the regime’s ability to fund its military, sustain patronage networks, and maintain internal control.
US MOVES AIRBORNE TROOPS, MARINES AS IRAN REJECTS CEASEFIRE, RAISING GROUND WAR POTENTIAL
This matters because the regime has already shown signs of fragility under economic pressure. The January 2026 protests were driven by inflation, banking instability, and the inability to provide basic services, including severe water shortages affecting millions in Tehran. There were even discussions about relocating the capital due to an inability to provide potable water. The regime responded with mass violence, killing over 32,000 civilians in one of the most brutal crackdowns in its modern history. Therefore, economic pressure is not theoretical. It has already brought the regime close to the edge.
Another option is to target the national power grid. Iran’s electricity system is concentrated around major urban hubs. Precision strikes on key substations and transmission nodes can create cascading outages across entire regions. Tehran goes dark.
The regime would be in immediate trouble without power. Command and control, surveillance, communications, and internal security coordination all depend on it. Precision strikes on key substations and transmission nodes can create cascading outages without total destruction of infrastructure. The U.S. has demonstrated that capability in past conflicts.
Cyber operations expand this further. Iran has repeatedly shut down internet access to control its population. That capability can be reversed. Disrupt regime command networks while enabling connectivity for the population through external systems. Information becomes a weapon. Control of narrative, coordination, and awareness shifts away from the regime.
The Strait of Hormuz remains decisive terrain. Roughly 20 percent of global oil supply, about 20 million barrels per day, flows through it. Iran’s strategy has long been to threaten and manipulate that flow.
One option is to move from deterrence to control. Seize or neutralize key islands. Experts have long identified Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunb islands as critical terrain controlling access to the Strait. Qeshm Island, sitting along the northern edge, hosts IRGC naval facilities, missile systems, and surveillance infrastructure. These positions enable Iran’s anti-ship missile coverage, fast attack craft operations, and maritime coercion. Controlling or neutralizing these islands would fundamentally alter Iran’s ability to contest the Strait.
Iran has also built a “toll booth” system in the Strait. The IRGC has created a de facto system where ships must be approved, routed through Iranian-influenced lanes, and in some cases pay millions for safe passage. Reports indicate fees reaching up to $2 million per tanker, selective approval based on political alignment, and designated transit corridors near Larak Island under regime control.
The United States and Israel have the capability to systematically dismantle this system. Target the leadership directing it. Destroy the coastal radar, ISR nodes and command centers enabling it. Eliminate the fast attack craft, drones, and missile batteries enforcing it. Break the system, and you break Iran’s ability to turn a global chokepoint into a regime-controlled revenue and coercion mechanism.
A related option is to interdict Iranian oil exports at sea. Iran exports roughly 1.5 to 2 million barrels per day, much of it through sanctions evasion networks. Stop and divert tankers. Enforce inspections and seizures at scale. This is already happening at a limited level. Scaling it drives regime revenue toward zero. No revenue means no missiles, no proxies, no repression, no functioning state.
INSIDE IRAN’S MILITARY: MISSILES, MILITIAS AND A FORCE BUILT FOR SURVIVAL
Other options shift inward. Iran’s population is over 85 million, young, urban, and repeatedly discontent. Available polling, protest patterns, and observable unrest all suggest that well over 50 percent of the population opposes the regime, and possibly much higher. This is not a solid or stable base of power. The January 2026 protests are a clear signal of that underlying pressure.
Until now, civilians have largely been told to shelter. That could change. Messaging, corridors, and psychological operations could begin to separate the population from the regime’s control mechanisms.
That can be paired with support to internal resistance. Air resupply of weapons, communications, and intelligence directly to resistance groups that may or may not exist. Iran has multiple internal fault lines, ethnic, political, and regional, that have historically produced opposition and unrest. When external pressure aligns with internal resistance, regimes fracture faster, or at least the pressure on the regime increases significantly.
At the same time, strikes can continue expanding beyond traditional military targets. The regime’s control system is a network: leadership, IRGC headquarters, Basij units, police, intelligence services, and repression infrastructure. Target those nodes, and you accelerate the erosion of centralized authority.
History shows pressure creates fractures. Military leaders hedge. Intelligence services fracture. Political elites reposition. Defections occur. Working with defectors multiplies effects far beyond what strikes alone can achieve.
There is also much we do not know. We do not have full visibility into where the regime is strongest or weakest. But indicators matter. Reports of attempts to expand mobilization, including lowering recruitment thresholds to as young as twelve, suggest stress. That is not the behavior of a confident regime.
IRAN’S REMAINING WEAPONS: HOW TEHRAN CAN STILL DISRUPT THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ
None of these options exist in isolation. They can be combined.
Destroy Iran’s missile arsenal and production capacity. Dismantle its navy. Continue degrading its nuclear program. Deny its ability to project power beyond its borders. At the same time, paralyze decision-making by targeting leadership and command systems. Apply pressure across military, economic, informational, and political domains simultaneously.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Attack the regime’s means and its will at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously. The objective is to impose multiple dilemmas, more than the regime can handle. Force it into reactive survival. Stretch its decision cycles. Overwhelm its ability to coordinate and control.
TANVI RATNA: WITH ONE WAR, TRUMP IS BREAKING MIDDLE EAST’S OLD POWER STRUCTURE
War is not a checklist. It is the alignment of ends, ways, and means under conditions of uncertainty. Options can be sequenced, layered, or applied simultaneously.
The United States has not run out of options. It has plenty it has not used, many that no one is talking about or that none of us can fully imagine without access to far more than what exists in the public domain, but could.
Lastly, be careful of analysts who speak in certainties or rely on surface analogies. Iran is not Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. It is not 1968, 2002, or 2003. The context of each is fundamentally different. The political objectives, from regime behavior change to regime survival, are different. Past wars involved nation building, attempts to create democracy, prolonged fights against insurgencies, and enemies who enjoyed sanctuary outside the operating environment. Those are not the same conditions or objectives at play here. The geography, technology, intelligence and regional dynamics are different. The options available today are far broader and more precise against the objectives.
We know a lot about what has been struck. We do not fully know what remains. More importantly, we do not know what decisions will be made next by either side. That uncertainty is not a flaw in analysis. It is the nature of war.
Latest
Tucker Carlson Officially Makes Shock Announcement — He’s Out
A growing divide within the conservative movement is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, as longtime commentator Tucker Carlson declared that he no longer considers himself a Republican, citing frustration with what he sees as the party’s abandonment of its America First roots.
Carlson made the remarks during a podcast appearance with hosts Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong, where the discussion turned to the political landscape ahead of the upcoming midterm elections and whether voters remain satisfied with the direction of the Republican Party.
While Carlson made clear that he remains aligned with many conservative principles, he argued that some Republican leaders have drifted away from the priorities that helped fuel President Donald Trump’s rise and transformed the GOP into the dominant force it is today.
“I’m out,” Carlson said during the interview.
“And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”
Carlson’s comments came as he discussed polling data and voter sentiment ahead of the next election cycle.
“I would not support the Republican party. There’s no chance I would support the Republican party,” he said.
The former Fox News host argued that certain Republican lawmakers had betrayed their voters by supporting policies he believes put foreign interests ahead of American priorities.
“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States? That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens?
“It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to.”
Carlson’s remarks highlight a growing debate inside conservative circles over the future direction of the Republican Party.
At the center of the disagreement is not President Trump himself, but rather how some Republicans have approached foreign policy, military intervention, and America’s role overseas.
Trump built his political movement on the promise of putting American interests first, securing the border, rebuilding the economy, restoring energy independence, and avoiding the endless foreign conflicts that frustrated many voters for decades.
Many of Trump’s supporters continue to view the America First agenda as one of the defining achievements of his political movement.
Carlson suggested that some Republicans have lost sight of those principles.
“I think I’ve voted Republican my entire life,” Carlson said.
“I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years, of the Republican party. I mean, a very consistent defender.”
“But there’s no defending this because it’s immoral and it’s exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing — which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation.”
“And they’re not doing that,” Carlson concluded.
The comments come amid an ongoing debate among conservatives regarding foreign policy, particularly following recent tensions involving Iran and the broader Middle East.
Carlson has been one of the most vocal advocates of a non-interventionist approach that emphasizes American interests above foreign entanglements. Other conservatives, including commentators and lawmakers aligned with a more traditional hawkish worldview, have argued that a strong American presence abroad remains necessary to protect national security.
The disagreement intensified after military operations involving Iran earlier this year, with Carlson and several other prominent voices warning against policies they believe could lead to deeper involvement in overseas conflicts.
Despite those disagreements, Carlson has generally continued to support many of Trump’s domestic policies, including border security, immigration enforcement, energy production, and efforts to prioritize American workers and taxpayers.
The broader divide illustrates the ongoing evolution of the Republican Party under Trump’s influence.
For decades, the GOP was largely defined by traditional establishment conservatives who favored aggressive foreign policy and intervention abroad. Trump’s rise fundamentally reshaped that coalition, bringing millions of working-class voters, independents, and populist conservatives into the party.
Today, debates like the one Carlson has raised reflect a larger question facing Republicans: how closely the party will adhere to the America First principles that helped fuel Trump’s political success.
Whether Carlson ultimately returns to the Republican fold remains to be seen. But his comments underscore a reality that many political observers have noted in recent years: the future of the conservative movement is increasingly being shaped by debates over foreign policy, national sovereignty, and what it truly means to put America first.
As those discussions continue, one thing remains clear: the America First movement that transformed Republican politics is still driving much of the conversation inside the conservative movement today.
Latest
Top Fox News Host Suffers Deranged Meltdown On LIVE TV — Doesn’t End Well…
A growing divide within the conservative movement spilled into public view this weekend as Fox News host Mark Levin launched a blistering attack on President Donald Trump’s Iran strategy, accusing the administration of pressuring Israel while pursuing a diplomatic agreement designed to permanently prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The dispute comes as the Trump administration continues negotiations with Tehran following a series of devastating military strikes that crippled Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, eliminated key regime leaders, and left the Islamic Republic in one of the weakest positions it has faced in decades.
President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have argued that the administration is negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength after demonstrating a willingness to use military force when necessary. Their goal, they say, is simple: ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon while avoiding another endless war in the Middle East.
Levin, however, remains deeply skeptical.
During a fiery monologue that lasted more than 17 minutes on Saturday, the longtime conservative commentator accused members of the administration of unfairly targeting Israel while becoming too optimistic about Iran’s intentions.
“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel. Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with,” Levin demanded. “When just a few months ago they slaughtered 50,000 people, they’re still hanging young people today and, if they had a nuclear missile today, they’d fire it into our country as sure as I’m alive.”
Levin also rejected any suggestion that Israel should allow outside governments to dictate its security decisions.
“I don’t know what’s going on, but if people think they can bully a little country, Israel — a people that have existed 4,000 years through the Babylonians and the Persians, through the Romans and the Third Reich — into surrendering their defense and their decision on how to secure their country, they get another thing coming,” Levin continued. “I think it’s outrageous.”
The criticism did not stop there.
Levin also used social media to question several administration policies, including reports surrounding a Boeing 747 gifted by Qatar and modified for use supporting presidential airlift operations.
“If it’s legal and other countries do it so be it. Do you think wealthy countries should be able to lavish gifts on our government?” Levin wrote.
His sharpest criticism, however, focused on the administration’s efforts to secure a broader peace agreement with Iran and its proxies.
“Item #1 in the MOU provides there’s an immediate and permanent end to the war and that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is Hezbollah,” Levin posted. “What’s the enforcement mechanism? Nothing. Israel defends itself after constant attacks from Hezbollah and is admonished for it. Its interests are not aligned with ours, we’re told. It’s endangering the peace deal. This is beyond nuts.”
In another post, Levin argued that current ceasefire efforts were coming at Israel’s expense.
“Apparently as long as Israeli soldiers are killed the ceasefire is holding,” Levin claimed.
The administration has strongly rejected suggestions that it is abandoning Israel or weakening its support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East.
President Trump responded directly Sunday with a warning aimed squarely at Iran and its regional proxies.
“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
For supporters of the administration, that message demonstrates exactly why they remain confident in Trump’s approach. They argue that no modern president has shown a greater willingness to confront Iran militarily while simultaneously seeking a diplomatic resolution that serves American interests.
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both emphasized that any final agreement would require Iran to permanently abandon its nuclear ambitions, submit to extensive inspections, and comply with strict verification requirements before receiving any economic benefits.
Administration officials also note that no sanctions have been lifted, no frozen assets have been released, and no direct payments have been authorized.
Instead, they argue that Trump has successfully put Iran in a position where the regime must choose between compliance and continued isolation.
The disagreement highlights a broader debate that has been developing inside the Republican Party for years.
Traditional foreign-policy hawks often favor maintaining maximum military pressure and remain deeply skeptical of negotiations with hostile regimes.
Trump’s America First coalition generally supports overwhelming military strength but prefers leveraging that strength into favorable deals that avoid long-term military entanglements.
Supporters of the president argue that Trump’s strategy reflects the same formula that has defined much of his foreign policy: peace through strength.
Strike hard when necessary. Demonstrate unquestionable resolve. Negotiate from a position of power. And avoid the costly nation-building efforts and endless conflicts that frustrated many Americans for decades.
As negotiations continue, the debate between Levin and the Trump administration reflects a larger question facing conservatives: how best to secure American interests abroad while staying true to the America First principles that have reshaped the Republican Party.
For now, President Trump appears committed to proving that military strength and diplomacy are not opposing strategies—but complementary tools for achieving lasting peace and protecting America’s national security.
Latest
It’s Over! The House Votes 396-13 — Trump Just Won!
In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the amended 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act this week, advancing a package of reforms designed to tackle America’s housing affordability crisis while delivering on several key priorities championed by President Donald Trump.
The legislation passed by a decisive 396-13 vote, reflecting broad agreement that soaring housing costs, rising rents, and limited inventory have pushed homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans.
Supporters say the bill addresses one of the country’s most pressing economic challenges by cutting red tape, increasing housing supply, strengthening lending opportunities, and helping ensure that American families—not large corporations—have a fair shot at buying homes.
The legislation combines elements of previous House and Senate proposals and seeks to address housing shortages that have contributed to record-high home prices in many parts of the country.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill praised the measure as a practical, results-oriented solution focused on expanding opportunities for working Americans.
“This bill prioritizes American families by expanding homeownership, enhancing affordability, reducing burdensome regulations that drive up costs, and increasing housing supply nationwide,” Chairman Hill stated.
“Importantly, it delivers on President Trump’s call to limit institutional investors from competing with the American people as they seek to purchase a home,” Hill added.
The legislation includes a variety of reforms aimed at accelerating housing construction and reducing barriers that have slowed development for years.
Among its key provisions, the bill streamlines federal permitting requirements, reduces lengthy environmental review processes for certain redevelopment and infill housing projects, and encourages innovative housing solutions such as modular and manufactured homes.
The measure also provides grants to local governments willing to modernize zoning laws and remove restrictions that limit new construction.
Supporters argue that restrictive zoning policies, excessive permitting delays, and government bureaucracy have significantly contributed to America’s housing shortage.
Rather than relying on massive new federal spending programs, the legislation focuses on empowering local communities, encouraging private-sector investment, and removing obstacles that make housing more expensive.
The bill also raises loan limits for multifamily housing developments, creating incentives for apartment construction and expanding options for renters and first-time buyers alike.
Additional provisions strengthen rural housing initiatives, expand support for veterans seeking housing, modernize financing for smaller mortgage loans, and increase the role community banks can play in local lending markets.
Community banks have long argued that excessive regulations have made it more difficult for them to serve homebuyers and construction projects in their local communities.
Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters acknowledged the seriousness of the housing crisis despite broader political disagreements.
“America is in the middle of a full-blown affordable housing and homelessness crisis, and working families are burdened by skyrocketing rents and a housing market that is pushing homeownership further out of reach,” Waters said.
One of the most notable aspects of the legislation is its effort to curb the growing influence of large institutional investors in the housing market.
For years, investment firms and corporate landlords have purchased thousands of single-family homes, often outbidding families and first-time homebuyers. Critics argue that this trend has driven up prices while transforming communities into rental markets dominated by large corporations.
The legislation includes targeted restrictions designed to discourage large institutional investors from acquiring additional single-family homes.
That approach aligns closely with President Trump’s housing agenda.
Throughout his second administration, Trump has repeatedly argued that homeownership should remain a cornerstone of the American Dream and that government policies should prioritize families over Wall Street investors.
In his National Homeownership Month proclamation earlier this month, Trump emphasized the importance of restoring affordability and expanding opportunities for future homeowners.
“During National Homeownership Month, my Administration recommits to making housing more affordable so that young Americans and hardworking families can raise children, build memories, and create a future in a home of their own,” Trump said.
The president has frequently blamed the housing crisis on “reckless spending, burdensome regulations, and failed housing policies” implemented under previous administrations, as well as “mass illegal immigration and large institutional investors” that have increased pressure on housing supply.
Trump has also taken executive actions aimed at reducing institutional ownership of single-family homes, lowering mortgage costs, and strengthening federal housing programs.
“Under my leadership, America will be a Nation where homes belong to families — not corporations,” Trump said.
At the same time, Trump has emphasized the importance of protecting the value of homes already owned by millions of Americans.
“I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. Existing housing, people who own their homes, we’re going to keep them wealthy. We’re going to keep those prices up. We’re not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn’t work very hard can buy a home,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting earlier this year.
He has also repeatedly summarized his housing philosophy with a simple message:
“Homes are built for people, not for corporations, and America will not become a nation of renters.”
With overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and growing concern over affordability nationwide, supporters hope the legislation will mark a significant step toward restoring homeownership opportunities and ensuring that the American Dream remains within reach for future generations.
-
Economy4 months agoVance Leaves Meeting, Looks Straight Into Camera, Announces Stunning Arrest
-
Economy4 months agoAdam Schiff Facing 30 Years In Prison After Bank Records Leak
-
Economy4 months agoSupreme Curt Sides With Trump — He Can Remove The All
-
Economy4 months agoAll Hell Breaks Loose On Fox When Jesse Watters Asks Fetterman One Question
-
Economy2 months agoPrayers Pour In After Fox Host Dies: ‘Senseless Murder’
-
Economy4 months agoNBC Stops LIVE Broadcast — Breaks Big Trump News
-
Economy4 months agoTrump Pulls Off Miracle Of A Lifetime — It’s Permanently Open
-
Economy4 months agoSwalwell Facing Jail Time After Sickening New Video Leaks




