If anyone has any doubts as to why we are fighting this war, just think of what the IRGC would do if it actually had operational nuclear warheads.

Kenneth R. Timmerman | August 11, 2026

Inspired by his service in the Prussian and Russian armies in the Napoleonic wars at the start of the 19th Century, Carl von Clausewitz has left us with many famous sayings from his unfinished treatise, On War, published after his death in 1830. Among them was that the "fog of war" often obscures what is really happening on the battlefield. Another is that "war is politics by other means." President Trump has been criticized in recent weeks by the left and the right for his repeated threats to launch yet another "massive" military strike on Iran, only to relent at the last minute in hopes of some breakthrough in negotiations that would satisfy the two major U.S. goals in this war: the unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions. So far, each time it has happened, the Iranians have backed away from a deal, either by new drone or missile strikes against ships in the Strait of Hormuz, or by instructing their proxies to carry out attacks against our Gulf allies. And each time that happens, the United States responds by taking out IRGC assets in southern Iran. The President has repeatedly expressed his reluctance to inflict massive damage on Iran's infrastructure, all the while threatening to do so should the Iranian regime not agree to his conditions. I believe he is trying to find the sweet spot of just enough military pressure to achieve his political goals, without inflicting what he sees as unnecessary and long-lasting damage. So far, he has failed to find that sweet spot. The regime -- or whoever is calling the shots in Iran........

© American Thinker