American Thinker The Case For Total Victory

Half-measures might end up worse than having done nothing at all.

Marc Weisman | April 3, 2026

In the words of Winston Churchill, this is a time for “victory at all costs.”  Rarely does history present an opportunity to resolve a long-entrenched conflict and reshape the global order.  The Middle East is now at such a moment — and the outcome may determine whether radical Islam declines, expands, or moves westward. If the current trajectory continues, the regional landscape will be fundamentally transformed: The Iranian regime will fall or be significantly weakened, Hamas will be disarmed, and Gaza will be rebuilt under an international framework.  The “ring of fire” surrounding Israel — long sustained by Iranian proxies — will cease to exist.  Hezb’allah will be weakened, giving Lebanon a chance to reclaim its sovereignty.  ISIS will be further diminished, and Saudi Arabia may well normalize relations with Israel.  The Abraham Accords will have withstood the stress test of October 7, and key Gulf states — even those once ambivalent — will continue their transition from radicalism toward economic and geopolitical pragmatism. Across Europe, Australia, and the United States, radical Islamist networks have increasingly taken root within liberal democracies.  A 2017 Pew Research Center survey found that roughly one in six U.S. Muslims perceived at least a “fair amount” of support for extremism within the community, while a Brookings Institution analysis documented the rise of “homegrown” jihadist networks across Europe. Radical Islamist persistence is reinforced in part by interpretations of canonical texts presented by extremists as divine mandates.  Like other Abrahamic religions, Islam contains teachings of charity and justice.  However, specific passages have been selectively invoked by extremist groups to justify violence against non-believers and apostates — including calls to “fight those who do not believe … until they submit”; the narration that “whoever changes his religion, kill him”; and the oft-cited hadith describing a time when “the stone or tree will say: ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.’” Enter Donald Trump.  In his first term, his visit to Riyadh challenged Arab leaders to move away from radicalism, followed by the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states and signaled a new regional paradigm.  What was once unthinkable became a foundation for economic cooperation, tourism, and security coordination.  The countries that chose normalization — the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan — did so out of calculation.  Integration into the global economy, access to Israeli technology, and alignment against shared threats offered greater benefits than ideological hostility.  The Gulf states now prioritize building over fighting.  In this environment, ideological warfare is economically irrational. Yet Iran continues to anchor the old paradigm, crying, “Death to America, death to Israel”; exporting revolutionary Islamist ideology; and sustaining proxy networks to undermine Israel and its Arab neighbors. Then came October 7, when Iran sought to seize a historic opportunity — to destroy Israel and cement regional dominance — but the effort has, so far, failed decisively.  Iran did not account for Donald Trump, who has long advocated for confronting the regime, dating back to the 1980 Iran hostage crisis.  The response — under a far more assertive U.S. posture — has paired Israel’s full-spectrum intelligence and military capabilities with overwhelming American power.  The result: Iran’s proxy network has been systematically degraded, its weapons pipelines disrupted, and its military infrastructure targeted, sharply reducing its ability to project power across the region. For more than two decades, leaders across the political spectrum have agreed on one principle: Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon.  Yet today, that consensus is being obscured by many Democrats and left-leaning media, whose reflexive opposition to Trump — amplified across major outlets — compels them to obsess over oil prices, market volatility, and near-term disruptions. If this moment does not culminate in decisive victory over Iran and Hamas, the consequences will extend far beyond the region.  If the Iranian regime endures, it will claim victory simply by surviving — demonstrating that even direct confrontation with the United States can be “won.”  If Gaza remains under Hamas rule, the message will be equally clear: Islamist violence can outlast Western resolve — and Israel and the West are, in the end, paper tigers. It is far from certain that the West will again produce leadership willing to assume the risks required to confront these forces so directly.  If Iran remains a sponsor of terror and Hamas survives as a governing force, the result will not be a return to the status quo, but a revitalization of Islamist momentum that will echo not only in the Middle East, but in the West for decades to come. Across the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia, Christians face sustained persecution — from mass killings in Nigeria to the displacement of ancient communities in Iraq and ongoing repression in Pakistan.  Jewish communities face parallel threats globally. In the United States and Europe, the warning signs are clear.  Synagogues operate under heavy security, attacks like the 2018 Tree of Life massacre in Pittsburgh remain searing reminders, and Islamist-inspired violence — from Orlando to Vienna and repeated assaults in France — has targeted civilians and religious institutions alike.  What was once shocking is becoming familiar.  At the same time, rhetoric once confined to the fringe is entering mainstream discourse in major Western cities, a sign of eroding boundaries that once held such views in check. At its core, radical Islamism is a movement that challenges pluralism, opposing religious freedom, minority rights, and ultimately the foundations of modernity.  If this chapter of history ends with the decisive defeat of its state sponsors, radical Islamist ideology’s appeal will wane — particularly among younger generations.  Without Iran to sustain it, and without continued external funding, it will lose momentum. The United States and Israel have, through sustained military and intelligence efforts, degraded the most visible manifestations of this threat.  But the ideology itself will endure.  The West now faces a stark reality: The epicenter of radical Islam may lie within its own borders. Addressing this challenge will not be easy.  It will require tighter immigration controls, the removal of individuals who actively promote extremist ideologies, and more effective integration into Western norms.  It also requires a firm willingness to confront all who openly espouse hatred for Western values, making clear that constitutional protections are no longer a license to inflame, incite, or undermine the society that guarantees them. At the same time, the Middle East is shifting in ways few anticipated, as entrenched Islamist ideology gives way to economic and geopolitical pragmatism.  The weakening of Iran and its proxies presents a historic opportunity.  But whether that opportunity is seized or squandered will depend on decisive outcomes in Iran and Gaza, and on whether the West can overcome its long reluctance to confront radical Islam at home.

American Thinker Why Liberals Should Vote Republican — Just Once Dr. Marc Weisman May 30, 2026 Liberals and moderate Democrats should vote Republican — just once — and make clear exactly why they are doing it. Liberals and moderate Democrats should vote Republican — just once — and make clear exactly why they are doing it. Not because they suddenly became conservatives. Not because they joined MAGA. Not because they abandoned long-held liberal beliefs on health care, abortion, climate change, or social programs. They should do it as a statement that the Democrat party is no longer recognizable to many Americans who once formed its center-left backbone. Not because they suddenly became conservatives. Not because they joined MAGA. Not because they abandoned long-held liberal beliefs on health care, abortion, climate change, or social programs. They should do it as a statement that the Democrat party is no longer recognizable to many Americans who once formed its center-left backbone. The goal is to save the Democrat party by empowering moderates who have been silenced or politically marginalized by an increasingly radical activist left that now defines far too much of the party’s moral and political identity.  Political parties reform after losses. Many Americans believe that the Democrat party has become incapable of correcting itself internally because the people capable of restoring balance no longer appear to control the party. Leftists with radical viewpoints no longer merely influence the Democrat party; in many areas, they define its moral and political boundaries.  Moderate Democrats still exist, but many now fear activist backlash, donor pressure, social media outrage, and primary challenges should they openly dissent from progressive orthodoxy. Americans watched as “Defund the Police” moved from activist slogan to mainstream political discussion.  Riots were repeatedly described as “mostly peaceful.”  Masked demonstrators blocked highways, occupied campuses, vandalized businesses, intimidated opponents, and disrupted public life while political leaders often appeared reluctant to restore order decisively for fear of backlash from activist constituencies. Many Democrat leaders now appear politically trapped by the very activist movements they once encouraged. At the same time, basic border enforcement increasingly became treated as morally suspect.  Sanctuary policies expanded. Rhetoric minimizing illegal immigration entered mainstream discourse.  Even liberal cities eventually acknowledged that unlimited migration without enforcement was unsustainable. The Democrat party increasingly allowed ideological activism to replace practical governance. Perhaps nowhere has this shift become more alarming than in the explosion of antisemitism following October 7. Instead of universal moral clarity following the massacre, torture, rape, kidnapping, and murder of Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists, many Democrats and much of the media immediately pivoted toward moral relativism, rationalization, or outright hostility toward Israel itself. Criticizing Israeli policy is legitimate.  Israelis themselves debate their government vigorously.  But questioning the legitimacy of the world’s only Jewish state is something very different. Zionism, stripped of slogans and propaganda, is simply the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland after centuries of expulsions, persecution, pogroms, and ultimately the Holocaust. Yet increasingly, the left insists that the one Jewish state is uniquely illegitimate.  The Jews are among the only peoples continuously tied to the same land, language, religion, and identity for more than 3,000 years.  In what historical framework does an indigenous people — conquered eleven times, yet never fully removed from its ancestral homeland and repeatedly returning to it across centuries — become redefined as “colonizers”? Many Jews now ask whether this obsession is really about Israeli policy at all.  The answer becomes clearer when activism shifts from targeting governments to targeting Jews themselves. After October 7, synagogues, Jewish schools, and Jewish neighborhoods across the United States became sites of intimidation and harassment.  Protesters shouted “Globalize the Intifada,” “Go back to Auschwitz,” and “Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud” — a chant historically associated with anti-Jewish violence.  Demonstrators blocked entrances to synagogues in Los Angeles, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and elsewhere while chanting slogans such as “We need to make them scared.” They targeted Jews praying, gathering publicly, or simply existing openly as Jews. This is not an isolated incident.  It is the progression of fringe radical leftism into organized political influence inside the Democrat party itself, while the mainstream media increasingly function less as a skeptical observer and more as an ideological participant. In New York City, mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani alarmed many Jewish and moderate voters not only because of his socialist politics, but because his broader ideological movement increasingly appeared hostile toward Zionism, policing, and traditional liberal norms.  Mamdani’s wife publicly “liked” social media content celebrating or glorifying the October 7 murders of Israeli civilians, alarming many Jewish and pro-Israel voters. Meanwhile in Michigan, Democrat Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed aligned himself with “Medicare for All,” hostility toward private insurance systems, and rhetoric associated with “defund the police” activism.  He also associated himself with controversial far-left influencer Hasan Piker, who openly celebrates Hezb’allah, has used rhetoric encouraging political violence, and has repeatedly made comments about America and Israel that many moderates view as extremist and profoundly irresponsible.  Yet Democrat candidates still seek his support because of his influence among younger voters — evidence of how successfully radical ideology has been normalized among a rising generation. There was a time when mainstream Democrat politicians would have viewed associations with rhetoric excusing terrorism, glorifying violence, or demonizing America as politically toxic.  Increasingly, that no longer appears to be the case. Many moderates struggle to reconcile that Democrats are too insulated from scrutiny, accountability, and serious internal criticism by either the media or the Democrat party itself until it is no longer credible to insulate them. When progressive politicians are accused of extremism, agenda-driven media often appear eager to minimize or redirect attention elsewhere.  When conservatives are accused, the presumption often appears to be immediate guilt and moral disqualification. At the same time, massive fraud investigations in Minnesota involving billions of dollars in alleged public misuse, ongoing corruption investigations in Los Angeles, and catastrophic governance failures surrounding the Palisades fire response further erode public confidence in one-party progressive governance. Add it all up, and the conclusion becomes difficult for many moderates to avoid: The Democratic Party increasingly appears captive to ideological activism while marginalizing moderation. One figure can be dismissed as an outlier.  A handful as coincidence.  But when hostility toward dissent, normalization of disorder, anti-police rhetoric, antisemitism, and the courting of openly Marxist influencers whose rhetoric many Americans view as deeply anti-American and increasingly supportive of political intimidation all converge within the same political movement, one must recognize that the center of gravity inside the party has changed. That is why many lifelong liberals may need to consider doing something politically uncomfortable: voting Republican once — not out of loyalty to Republicans or devotion to Donald Trump, but as a strategic intervention designed to empower moderate Democrats to wrestle back the soul of the Democrat party. Healthy democracies require two sane, functioning parties capable of governing from the political center.  When one party drifts too far toward ideological extremism, electoral defeat may become the only mechanism capable of forcing introspection and course correction. Far from being a betrayal, this may be the only remaining path back toward a Democratic Party once again capable of representing ordinary Americans in the political center and center-left.