Half-measures might end up worse than having done nothing at all.
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
The Case For Total Victory