Conservative historian Victor Davis Hanson drew a striking parallel this week that cuts through the noise of partisan bickering and gets to the heart of what leadership actually means in a dangerous world. According to Hanson’s comments on FOX News, he compared President Trump to Winston Churchill, and the comparison is more apt than the establishment media wants to admit. Think about it: Churchill spent years warning about the rising threat of Nazi Germany while the world dismissed him as a warmonger and a relic, as Hanson pointed out in his analysis.
Hanson makes the point that for 47 years, Iran has operated through what he calls lying, disguise and dissimulation, based on his historical expertise. They took our hostages, they blew up our barracks, they attacked our embassy, and through it all, they faced no real consequences because seven consecutive American presidents made the same calculation: dealing with Iran would be too hard, too messy, too politically risky, as Hanson attributes to their records. Every single one of them, from Carter to Biden, promised to address the Iranian threat, according to Hanson’s review of their statements, and every single one failed to follow through. And here is the kicker: every single one of them admitted after leaving office that they regretted not acting when they had the chance, a fact Hanson cites from their memoirs and interviews.
Trump is different, and that difference is exactly why the permanent foreign policy class despises him, as Hanson argues in his FOX News appearance. He is not playing the game; he is not kicking the can down the road for the next administration to handle. When people demand an imminent threat before acting against Iran, they are missing the entire point of how this regime operates, according to Hanson’s explanation. Iran does not telegraph its punches; it strikes through proxies, through surprise attacks, through the kind of asymmetric warfare that has killed American servicemen and women for decades, as Hanson details based on historical events.
What Hanson recognizes, and what the American people increasingly see, is that Trump is willing to be unpopular in order to be right, drawing from Hanson’s broader commentary. He is willing to absorb the slings and arrows of the media, the condemnations from European capitals, the hand-wringing from the foreign policy establishment, because he understands something fundamental: peace through strength is not a slogan, it is a strategy, as Hanson emphasizes. And weakness invites aggression. The only question that matters now is whether we have the collective will to see this through, or whether we will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because the wrong person gets the credit.
Providence watches over the bold.
About The Author
