A stark image emerged on March 2, 2026: the United States, alongside Israel, engaged in a sustained military operation targeting approximately 15,000 sites within Iran. This action has ignited a firestorm of debate, particularly given prior statements made by President Donald Trump.
During his triumphant election night speech in November 2024, Trump delivered a clear promise: “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.” He doubled down on this commitment during his inauguration two months later, stating success would be measured not just by victories, but by wars avoided.
Yet, on February 28, 2026, “Operation Epic Fury” commenced, a large-scale military campaign against Iran. The unexpected turn has sparked outrage and a sense of betrayal among some of Trump’s most ardent supporters and Republican lawmakers, with even prominent figures like Joe Rogan voicing their discontent.
Could it be that a deeper rationale underlies this seemingly contradictory decision? Is there a strategic logic at play that transcends the initial promise of peace?
Yoram Ettinger, a former Israeli ambassador and expert on U.S.-Israel relations, argues precisely that. He believes the current operation isn’t a departure from Trump’s anti-war stance, but a necessary step *towards* ending conflicts globally.
Ettinger asserts that dismantling the current Iranian regime is a prerequisite for lasting peace. Since 1979, he contends, Iran has been a central force in fostering instability through terrorism, civil wars, and illicit activities across multiple continents.
Allowing the regime to remain in power, Ettinger warns, would severely weaken America’s ability to deter aggression. A regime change, however, would dismantle the ideology fueling this instability, impacting education, politics, and the military.
The consequences of inaction, according to Ettinger, extend far beyond the Middle East. He suggests it would embolden China, Russia, and Turkey, each pursuing expansionist agendas, ultimately eroding U.S. economic and national security.
Furthermore, abandoning the goal of regime change in Iran would jeopardize the Abraham Accords, the landmark normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations brokered during Trump’s first term. These agreements rely on a shifting regional dynamic.
But the most critical concern, Ettinger emphasizes, is the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. He argues that failing to dismantle the regime could lead to the emergence of the first apocalyptic nuclear power, a catastrophe dwarfing any previous costs associated with regime change efforts.
