Trump's Iran strategy is working. We just need to be patient

By Hedieh Mirahmadi, Exclusive Columnist Thursday, April 16, 2026

What we are witnessing in Iran right now is not just another chapter in a long geopolitical struggle. It is a moment that forces clarity about power, military strategy, and ultimately about the deeper spiritual battle that has always defined this conflict.

The recent U.S. military campaign against Iran has, by every measurable standard, achieved what past administrations repeatedly failed to do. Iran’s conventional military capabilities have been severely degraded. Its air defenses, naval assets, and weapons infrastructure have been targeted with precision, leaving the regime decimated in ways we have not seen in decades. What is striking is not only the scale of the impact, but the efficiency. Compared to prolonged and costly engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, or even the 72-day bombing campaign in Serbia, this operation has been swift and decisive.

The human cost, while never insignificant, has been remarkably limited on the American side. Thirteen soldiers lost is 13 too many, and each life carries eternal weight. Yet in the context of modern warfare, where conflicts often stretch for years with thousands of casualties, this outcome reflects a deliberate effort to apply overwhelming force without becoming entangled in endless occupation.

At the same time, the economic indicators tell their own story. Markets have remained stable. Strategic pressure, including the tightening of Iran’s economic lifelines, has shifted leverage in a way that strengthens the American position globally. Even seasoned diplomats like Ambassador Dennis Ross have acknowledged that the current naval blockade has created a level of pressure on Tehran that few thought possible without a full-scale war.

What makes this moment even more significant is the strategy behind it. The rhetoric coming out from President Trump has been bombastic, at times unpredictable, and clearly intentional. This is not careless language. It is calculated. It echoes a long-standing doctrine in foreign policy that unpredictability can be a tool of deterrence. When adversaries cannot anticipate your next move, they hesitate. That hesitation creates space for leverage.

At the same time, diplomacy has not been abandoned. It has been repositioned. Negotiations have taken place not after conflict, but during it. That alone marks a departure from the way wars have traditionally been conducted. Pressure is being applied while dialogue remains open, creating a dynamic where Iran is not negotiating from strength, but from necessity.

This dual approach is further reinforced by the presence of voices within the administration who serve a different function. While one side projects strength and unpredictability, others offer reassurance and stability. This balance sends a message not only to adversaries but to allies. There is force, but there is also control.

The broader geopolitical consequences are already unfolding. Iran’s ability to fund and sustain its proxy networks has been disrupted. Groups that have long destabilized the region are now facing financial and operational constraints. Coordination between Israel and key Arab states has improved, and the possibility of a broader regional alignment is no longer theoretical. It is becoming tangible.

Yet even as these developments unfold, it is critical to assess the cost with honesty. Financially, the campaign is significant, but when compared to the trillions lost in prolonged wars or even the billions wasted in domestic waste and fraud we saw in Minnesota and California, it is a contained investment with strategic return. More importantly, there has been a clear effort to avoid large-scale civilian targeting. That distinction matters. It reflects an understanding that moral legitimacy is not separate from military success. It is part of it.

What has not occurred, at least not yet, is regime change. That restraint is deliberate. History has shown that externally imposed regime change often leads to instability rather than freedom. The focus has instead been on weakening the regime’s capacity to project power, particularly in the areas of military aggression and nuclear development.

This brings us to the deeper question that cannot be ignored. What is driving the Iranian regime? This is not merely a political system seeking influence. It is an Islamist ideology rooted in a worldview that elevates martyrdom, embraces confrontation, and frames its hostility toward Israel and the United States in existential terms. That reality must be understood if any long-term strategy is to succeed.

In contrast, the United States and Israel operate from a framework that, at its best, seeks to preserve life, advance human dignity, and foster innovation and stability. The difference between these worldviews is not abstract. It plays out in how power is used, how civilians are treated, and what kind of future is envisioned.

For American voters, the political implications are unavoidable. Military success abroad often carries domestic consequences. While initial reactions may be mixed, sustained outcomes tend to reshape public perception. If the current trajectory holds, this campaign will likely be viewed as a defining moment heading into the next election cycle. The stakes are not only political. They are civilizational. The direction of American leadership will determine how these victories are consolidated or squandered.

For Christians, the analysis must go even deeper. National security matters. Protecting the nation from external threats is a legitimate and necessary responsibility. A weakened Iranian regime does reduce certain risks. It limits the reach of a government that has openly supported violence and instability.

However, external threats are only part of the picture. The erosion of values within our own culture presents a different kind of danger. The spread of ideologies that undermine biblical truth, distort justice, and compromise the moral foundation of society cannot be addressed through military means. That battle is spiritual, cultural, and deeply personal.

As someone of Iranian heritage, this moment carries a weight that is difficult to fully express. My heart is not detached from the people there. It cannot be. I grieve their suffering. I know the cost of living under a regime that does not reflect their aspirations or their dignity. There is a longing for freedom that no military campaign can fully deliver.

That is why the question of regime change must be approached with humility. True transformation in Iran must come from within. It must be driven by the Iranian people themselves. External pressure can create conditions. It can weaken oppression. It can open doors. But it cannot replace the internal awakening that leads to lasting freedom.

From a Christian perspective, there is another layer that cannot be ignored. Even in the midst of oppression, the Gospel has been advancing in Iran in extraordinary ways. The underground church has grown. Lives have been transformed. Faith has taken root in places where persecution is real and costly.

The ultimate prayer is not only for political freedom, but for spiritual freedom. For a nation where believers can worship openly, where the name of Jesus is no longer spoken in secret, and where the harvest of souls continues without fear.

This is the tension we are living in. Strategic success on the global stage, coupled with a deep awareness of human suffering and spiritual need. Strength must be exercised, but it must be guided by wisdom. Victory must be defined not only by what is destroyed, but by what is ultimately restored.

The situation in Iran is far from resolved. What has been achieved is significant, but it is not final. The coming months will determine whether this moment becomes a turning point or simply another cycle in a long and painful history.

The responsibility now is not only on leaders, but on all of us. To remain clear-eyed about the realities of power. To remain grounded in truth. And to remember that behind every headline, every strategy, and every policy decision, there are real people whose lives hang in the balance.

That includes the people of Iran. And it includes the future of our own nation.