WHAT IF TRUMP IS ACTUALLY PREVENTING A MUCH BIGGER WAR?

Nobody should want war with Iran. Nobody should celebrate bombs, missiles or death.

But there is an uncomfortable reality Americans need to consider:

Sometimes refusing to confront a growing threat does not preserve peace. It merely postpones the war until the enemy is stronger.

That, in my view, is the fundamental difference between President Trump's approach toward Iran and the approaches taken by Presidents Obama and Biden.

THE OBAMA APPROACH: NEGOTIATE, RELEASE PRESSURE AND GIVE IRAN ECONOMIC BREATHING ROOM

President Obama's strategy was built primarily around diplomacy and the Iranian nuclear agreement.

The theory was straightforward: give Iran economic incentives, reduce sanctions pressure and bring Iran into an agreement restricting its nuclear program.

As part of that broader policy, Iran regained access to enormous amounts of previously frozen Iranian money.

There was also the controversial $1.7 billion payment made by the Obama administration in 2016, including about $400 million representing an old Iranian payment for military equipment that was never delivered and roughly $1.3 billion in interest.

That money was physically delivered to Iran in foreign currency cash.

Supporters argued that it settled a decades-old legal dispute.

Critics saw something much more troubling: billions of dollars reaching a government that was simultaneously supporting militant organizations and expanding its influence throughout the Middle East.

The larger problem, in my view, was not simply one payment.

It was the philosophy behind the policy.

Give Iran economic relief and hope that moderation follows.

But governments do not necessarily spend newly available resources the way Washington hopes they will.

Money is fungible.

Even when certain funds are supposedly designated for civilian or humanitarian purposes, every dollar available for one government obligation potentially frees another dollar for military activity, weapons development or support of proxy organizations.

THE BIDEN APPROACH: RETURN TO DIPLOMACY AND REDUCE CONFRONTATION

The Biden administration largely returned to the belief that Iran could be managed primarily through negotiation, sanctions adjustments, waivers and diplomatic agreements.

Again, the intention was understandable:

Avoid another Middle Eastern war.

But there is a serious weakness in that strategy.

If Iran believes America desperately wants to avoid confrontation, Iran may conclude that pushing harder carries relatively little risk.

That can encourage rather than discourage aggression.

Meanwhile Iran's proxy network remains important because it allows Tehran to exert military pressure without always confronting the United States directly.

That creates a dangerous arrangement:

Iran finances or supports groups that attack its enemies while attempting to remain one step removed from the consequences.

TRUMP'S APPROACH IS ALMOST THE REVERSE

Trump's strategy appears built around a very different assumption:

Peace is more likely when your adversary knows exactly what continued aggression will cost.

Instead of offering economic relief first and hoping Iran changes afterward, Trump applies economic and military pressure first and demands behavioral change before substantial relief comes.

That means attacking the problem from two directions.

MILITARILY

Destroy or seriously weaken the weapons, infrastructure, command systems and military capabilities that Iran could use directly or through its proxy network.

The objective should not be occupying Iran.

It should not be another twenty-year war.

The objective should be making Iran substantially less capable of threatening its neighbors or dragging the world into a much larger conflict.

FINANCIALLY

This may prove even more important.

Iran cannot sustain military operations without money.

Missiles cost money.

Drones cost money.

Weapons cost money.

Training fighters costs money.

Moving weapons across borders costs money.

Supporting proxy organizations costs enormous amounts of money.

Therefore, choking off revenue can accomplish something military strikes alone cannot:

It makes rebuilding much harder.

Military action can destroy today's weapons.

Financial pressure can prevent tomorrow's weapons from replacing them.

That combination is potentially devastating to Iran's ability to wage prolonged proxy warfare.

THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE

Obama and Biden essentially relied more heavily on this theory:

Reduce pressure → negotiate → provide economic incentives → hope Iran moderates.

Trump's philosophy is closer to:

Increase pressure → destroy dangerous capabilities → cut financing → restore deterrence → negotiate from strength.

Neither strategy guarantees success.

But I believe Trump's approach recognizes something the previous strategy underestimated:

Iran needs money to project power.

If Iran has billions available, it has considerably more options.

If its military infrastructure is being destroyed while its revenue is being squeezed, its choices become increasingly limited.

Eventually Iran's leaders may have to decide:

Do we continue spending enormous resources confronting America and its allies?

Or do we negotiate?

WHY THIS COULD AFFECT THE ENTIRE WORLD

This conflict extends far beyond Iran.

China is watching.

Russia is watching.

North Korea is watching.

America's allies are watching.

Every government considering aggression is watching what happens when another country crosses American red lines.

If America's enemies conclude that Washington fears confrontation more than they do, deterrence disappears.

And once deterrence disappears, wars become more likely.

But if hostile governments see that military aggression can result in overwhelming economic and military consequences, suddenly negotiation becomes much more attractive.

That is why Trump's actions could ultimately promote peace rather than destroy it.

THE REAL QUESTION

Americans understandably ask:

Why risk war with Iran?

But perhaps we should also ask:

What happens if we don't confront the problem?

Imagine Iran several years from now with more money, rebuilt military capabilities, stronger proxy armies, additional advanced weapons and possibly a Middle East in which several nations believe they also need nuclear weapons for protection.

Then add Russia.

China.

Israel.

The United States.

Europe.

And numerous competing regional powers.

That is how a regional confrontation can eventually become something much larger.

Possibly even a global war.

Stopping that chain before it develops may ultimately save far more lives than avoiding confrontation today.

Nobody can guarantee Trump's strategy will succeed.

Military action always carries enormous risks.

But I believe there is a legitimate possibility that history will look very differently at what is happening today.

Trump may not simply be fighting Iran.

He may be attempting to break the financial and military system that has allowed Iran to wage conflict through others for decades.

And if weakening that system forces Iran toward serious negotiations while warning other aggressive nations that America will defend its interests, the result could ultimately be greater stability.

The difference between the approaches could hardly be clearer:

Obama and Biden attempted to buy time through diplomacy and economic accommodation.

Trump is attempting to create peace through economic pressure, military strength and deterrence.

Sometimes peace comes from compromise.

Sometimes it comes from diplomacy.

But diplomacy works best when both sides know there are consequences for walking away.

That appears to be Trump's gamble:

Destroy the immediate threat.

Cut off the money financing the next threat.

Restore American deterrence.

Then negotiate from strength.

If it works, history may not remember Trump's actions for the war they caused.

History may remember them for the much larger war they prevented.