American Leadership in a Time of War

Share this link on Facebook

Share this page on X (Twitter)

Share this link on LinkedIn

Share this page on Reddit

Email a link to this page

Decisiveness, humility, and vigilance are needed if the United States is to prevail in the war with Iran.

Editor’s Note: The following was adapted from Senator Dave McCormick’s (R-PA) remarks delivered before the Alexander Hamilton Society on March 11, 2026. It has been edited for style and clarity.

In his trenchant book, Leadership, the late Henry Kissinger observed that nations are always in motion, hurtling into an uncertain future. “Along this route,” he writes, “leadership is indispensable: decisions must be made, trust earned, promises kept, a way forward proposed.” And sometimes, leadership is more indispensable than others. This is one of those times. America is at war. The world is changing rapidly. Leadership is at a premium.

I began my career 40 years ago as a young Army lieutenant. Through the decades, as a soldier, scholar, diplomat, CEO, and now elected official, I have seen our country pass many such tests from the fall of the Iron Curtain to the Gulf War to 9/11 to the global financial crisis.

As our brave men and women in uniform face the enemy half a world away, I would like to pause and reflect on what these experiences suggest for this moment about the importance of decisive action, the virtue of humility in war, and the need for vigilance at the hinge points of history.

2026: Decisive Action

On February 28, the United States launched Operation Epic Fury: the campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran. My heart breaks for the families of the 13 American men and women killed. I hope all Americans will join me in praying for those brave patriots, their families, and all those still fighting for our nation.

But as I watch the capabilities and professionalism of our brave men and women today, my heart swells with pride. All signs indicate they are achieving their military objectives. They are destroying Iran’s missiles, missile launchers, weapons production capabilities, and navy, and leveling Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons.

No other nation could have done this. No other nation could have mustered the intelligence, delivered so much firepower so precisely, and coordinated so magnificently with allies and partners.

Apparently, some disagree. Some question how imminent the threat from Iran was, whether it warranted action. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle challenged the constitutionality of the operation. Some now question the conduct of the military. Mostly, I hear warnings of quagmires and fears that this could become another forever war.

Like so many others, I got caught up in the wave of triumphalism leading up to the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003 and am scarred by the 20 years of war that followed. I understand the fears of prolonged, aimless operations. However, we must not accept a false choice between forever wars and surrender. We can—and should—be confident in President Donald Trump’s decision to take down the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.

This is a regime with the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands. This is a regime committed to developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles—and that armed Russia with drones and fueled communist China with its oil. This is a regime that bankrolled terrorist proxies and called us the “Great Satan.” This is a regime that impoverished a once great nation and murdered tens of thousands of its own people.

America can—indeed it must—be ready and willing to deploy decisive military force to secure its interests and achieve clear military objectives. Twelve days into this war, that’s exactly what the Trump administration has done.

After Operation Midnight Hammer, the president gave the ayatollahs every opportunity to disable and disavow their nuclear weapons and missile programs. They refused to do so.

Instead, they took initial steps to restart their nuclear weapons program, while doubling their efforts to build a shield of ballistic missiles and proxy terrorist forces across the Middle East. Every day we waited, the cost to forcibly end their nuclear weapons program grew, as did their capacity to devastate the region.

Imagine a world in which Iran—a regime devoted to the destruction of the United States and Israel—had the nuclear and conventional weapons to make it happen. We would be living in a different world. The threat from Iran was imminent. It may not have come tomorrow, but tomorrow is often too late. The president acted, and rightly so.

This was resolute and decisive leadership in action, and it is most needed in times of peril. But such resolve must be matched with humility—the second leadership virtue I’d like to impress upon you tonight.

Why Russia and China Aren’t Helping Iran

Both Moscow and Beijing stand to benefit from a prolonged war between the United States and Iran.

How the Seven Years’ War Can Help Us Understand Today’s Conflicts

The “world war” of the 18th century, with its shifting coalitions and proxy fronts, is more akin to the 21st century’s wars than the 20th century’s.

Regime Change in Iran Is the Only Path to Middle East Peace

The current government of Iran has made clear that it will never consent to a US-led postwar order in the Middle East. It must go.

On the desk in my Senate office sits a framed copy of an op-ed I once wrote. Describing the prospect of a military campaign in the Middle East, it reads: “The cause is noble and just. Military objectives are achievable and clear.”

The title: “Let’s Roll Against Saddam Hussein.” I wrote that piece 24 years to the day before Operation Epic Fury began, on February 28, 2002. And I have thought about it every day since the shooting started in Iran.

Our country did roll against Saddam Hussein. The initial invasion was swift and decisive. It removed him from power and collapsed his regime. But then the mission drifted. In that 2002 essay, I dismissed concerns that a “stable, democratic post-Hussein regime would be difficult to achieve.” I was wrong.

I failed to appreciate how complicated that mission would be—how vague and broad aims would eventually lead to indecisiveness and directionless military operations. That’s exactly what happened. Our presence in Iraq devolved into a drawn-out occupation because we bought into the so-called Pottery Barn Rule: “If you break it, you own it.”

Yes, Iraq became a stable democracy in a region beset by chaos, and we removed a brutal dictator who threatened American interests and security. But the arrogant notion that we “owned” Iraq following the invasion—that we were obligated to remake it in our image—never should have governed American policy. That belief gave way to a prolonged occupation that cost 4,400 American service members their lives, left another 32,000 wounded, consumed more than $820 billion in wartime spending, and deeply eroded the trust and support of the American people. 

That was the first mistake.

The second mistake is drawing the wrong conclusion from it. Successive administrations mismanaged the war at terrible cost, and that failure gave rise to a dangerous fallacy: that the use of military force inevitably leads to quagmires and forever wars. That is the wrong lesson.

The lesson of Iraq isn’t “never use military force.” The lesson is that sometimes it is necessary to use force to clear ends that advance America’s interests, but in those moments, humility is vital. Humility about the scope of our ambitions; the boundaries of our power; the limits of our responsibility

If an adversary threatens us, we must and will remove the threat. And whatever remains is their concern and responsibility, not ours. Our adversaries bring violence to their door by endangering our citizens and our national interests. They own the consequences and what comes next. To some, that may sound nasty and brutish. But I speak from experience when I say there is nothing more nasty and brutish than war.

My heart will always hurt for the loss of life, particularly innocent civilians, but the American military sets the global standard for precision and protecting non-combatants. More importantly, our armed forces serve to secure American interests. Not to build nations for others.

I imagine some students of history here are asking: didn’t we rebuild Japan and Europe after World War II? Yes, but not out of idealism or charity. President Harry Truman and the wise men at his side looked back at the preceding decades of war and depression. They saw the Iron Curtain descending, and they recognized that they had to form a ballast against communism and a world more conducive to American prosperity and peace. This was a realistic and brutal assessment of what was required to secure a better world for America.

The operation in Iran is different from Iraq, and miles away from World War II. We are using the might of the United States military to remove a grave threat, not remake global politics. We must not convince ourselves we “own” Iran as we did Iraq. Instead, there are several potential endgames. And America is better off in each.

First, the regime endures, but a new leader emerges—one America can work with. The president appears to be on a path to achieve this in Venezuela. Even if that leader falls short of a true partner, Iran’s missile and nuclear programs will be significantly degraded.

Second, the regime collapses, and a new one takes its place. Whether it is pro-Western is ultimately up to the Iranian people in the long term.

The final potential outcome is that Iran experiences state collapse. This is the most volatile outcome, and it demands the most humility.

In the chaos that follows, new threats can take root. America must remain vigilant. But even on this path, nuclear blackmail and Iran’s ballistic missile and drone threat are off the table—and that alone is a historic achievement and makes America safer.

All three outcomes leave our nation more secure than it was before, and all are made possible by the efficacy, lethality, and professionalism of our extraordinary armed forces.

The Iranian people are also closer to holding their destiny in their hands than at any point in the last 47 years. I fervently wish for them to enjoy the blessings of liberty, and where possible, we should help them secure it. That’s why I introduced legislation in February to strengthen internet access in Iran, which the regime has blacked out since operations began.

But we must stay true to our military objectives. It is not our duty to secure a democratic future through sustained military presence. We must not drift from our clear and limited aims.

There is a third and final point I’d like to leave you with: in moments of profound change like this, it is more important than ever that we remain vigilant in maintaining American strength and leadership.

In the past year, we have taken strong steps to rebuild America’s military with a clear objective: restore the strength needed to deter—and, if necessary, defeat—Communist China. Congress has boosted defense spending and accelerated reforms. President Trump has rightly pushed to raise spending further and directed a comprehensive overhaul of our defense acquisition system.

The early fruits of that effort are on display in Iran. We have integrated AI, autonomous systems, drones, and precision technology alongside our exquisite platforms. Intelligence targeting that required 2,000 soldiers can now be executed by a team of 20.

The last time the world saw America’s military dominance at this scale, I was a young lieutenant in the 82nd Airborne Division during Operation Desert Storm. President George HW Bush, like Trump today, had taken decisive action to eliminate a real threat to our national security.

I will always remember driving across the desert into Iraq on the first day of the campaign. The dawn light illuminated scattered husks of Iraqi tanks, trucks, and artillery destroyed by our precision-guided missiles and superior air power. 

When the smoke cleared over Iraq and the operation ended, American military dominance stood unrivaled. Charles Krauthammer declared it the “unipolar moment.” But our leaders squandered our position. They told themselves America had won, and they could afford to dismantle our military and decommission our defense industrial base. They were wrong, and we’re now paying to undo the damage done by their short-sightedness three decades ago.

So, when the smoke clears over Iran and America stands triumphant, we must not become complacent. You can rest assured that our geopolitical adversaries in Beijing are watching our success in Iran with interest and concern. They hope we will repeat past mistakes, draw down, and lose our edge. If we do, they will win.

Just as we cannot prematurely declare “mission accomplished” in Iran, we must not declare “mission accomplished” on the rebuilding of America’s military. We must continue to learn from the revolution in military affairs on display in Ukraine and Iran. We must accelerate innovation and rebuild our defense industrial capacity.

Our enemies still circle, looking for weakness. Let us stay vigilant in response.

As America turns the page into the next 250 years, the greatest risk we face is not enemies abroad, but cynicism, incrementalism, pettiness, and divisiveness at home. To borrow from President Ronald Reagan, “We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we’re in a time when there are not heroes, they just don’t know where to look.”

Dear friends of the Alexander Hamilton Society, in this next generation, we need heroes to face this moment with resolve, humility, and vigilance. I challenge you—I urge you to be the heroes our nation needs for this great moment and this great mission. Thank you.

About the Author: Dave McCormick

Dave McCormick is a US senator for Pennsylvania. He sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is the former CEO of Bridgewater Associates and served as a paratrooper and later captain in the 82nd Airborne Division. He was deployed to Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991.

Why Russia and China Aren’t Helping Iran

Both Moscow and Beijing stand to benefit from a prolonged war between the United States and Iran.

How the Seven Years’ War Can Help Us Understand Today’s Conflicts

The “world war” of the 18th century, with its shifting coalitions and proxy fronts, is more akin to the 21st century’s wars than the 20th century’s.

Regime Change in Iran Is the Only Path to Middle East Peace

The current government of Iran has made clear that it will never consent to a US-led postwar order in the Middle East. It must go.

© The National Interest