While the media drones on about the unpopularity of the president’s operation in Iran, Americans’ opinions, with all due respect, don’t really matter. In eight months, voters will have the chance to grade the Trump administration’s decision to level the Islamist regime that’s terrorized the West for decades. But until then, the only thing that anyone should care about, apart from the safety of U.S. troops, is the United States and its allies getting as close to eliminating one of the world’s greatest existential threats as humanely possible.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t confusion about next steps. In one soundbite, President Trump says the war is almost over, and in the next, he allows for the possibility of ground troops. One thing he could certainly stand to improve is his messaging. And yet, as contradictory as his statements may be, the why of the administration’s action should never be in question. As Thérèse Shaheen is quick to point out in National Review, “In the case of Iran, the threat is not speculative. Iran’s intent, capabilities, and behavior have had demonstrably dangerous results for America and Americans.” If the president had intelligence that a “catastrophic conflict” was likely, then acting now, she argues, “may prevent greater destruction later.”

We may never know what classified information went into Trump’s decision-making or timeline, but the reality is this: the majority of people in this country elected him to act in the best interest of America. Like it or not, voters chose him to use his own judgment when it came to confronting the bullies of this world. And they supported him, recognizing that this was a possibility. As Trump himself bragged this week, “No other president had the guts to do it.”

And the reality is, even after months of diplomatic attempts, Iran’s leaders were never interested in peace. “[They’ve] been notorious for using negotiations to drag out talks to continue enriching uranium — while never agreeing to anything,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “They were never going to agree to stop working towards a nuclear weapons program. And so, President Trump finally said, ‘If they will kill tens of thousands of their own people, they will not hesitate to kill Americans if they get a nuclear bomb, and once they get that bomb, it’s too late to negotiate with them, because then you lose that leverage.’ This was the time to strike.”

As a planet, the hope now must be that the alliance of America, Israel, and other Arab nations finishes the job. And based on the reports from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and other top officials, the U.S. will not accept anything but the complete dismantling of Iran’s military and nuclear power. Deep into its second week, Hegseth told the media that Tuesday “will be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran,” which is a bold statement considering the 5,000 targets already hit.

Meanwhile, the decimated government, including new Supreme Leader Mojitaba Khamenei, is struggling to respond. According to the secretary, “The mullahs are desperate and scrambling. Like the terrorist cowards they are, they fire missiles from schools and hospitals, deliberately targeting innocents, because they know their military is being systematically degraded and annihilated.” Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine explained that Iran is “fighting, and I respect that. But I don’t think they’re more formidable than what we thought.” Even now, the conflict is dramatically one-sided. “We’ve made significant progress in reducing the number of missile and drone attacks out of Iran,” Caine acknowledged. “Ballistic missile attacks continue to trend downward, 90% from where they’ve started, and one-way attack drones have decreased 83%, since the beginning of the operation.”

Incredibly, Iran’s targets continue to be other neighbors, which most experts believe only helps the U.S. “The talking points you heard going into this [were], ‘If we ever did what needed to be done with Iran, the whole Middle East would be in an uproar against us,” Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) pointed out on “Washington Watch” Monday. “[And] what we’ve seen is the opposite, where we see other nations, maybe not to the extent we’d like, but they’re certainly not joining in the fight with Iran. They’re saying, ‘These guys have been a menace to our region. We want peace for our kids. We want peace for our family. We want peace for our region. And what that means is taking out the capability of Iran to do evil things in their region and around the world.’”

From a strategic standpoint, broadening their response is foolish, most agree. “Iran has done Trump a favor by attacking all its Arab neighbors,” Elliott Abrams argues, “which makes those neighbors U.S. and Israeli allies. The U.S. does not now need to cajole them into assisting our forces this week and helping to stop Iranian missiles and drones aimed at Israel; we are all on the same side against Iran. We can assume that after the war, there will be new U.S. diplomatic efforts to bring Israel and the Arabs closer by expanding the Abraham Accords.”

While his crippled country tries to retaliate, the younger Khamenei remains in hiding — his dwindling lieutenants still talking tough. Almost comically, Iran’s National Security Council secretary insisted Iran isn’t losing the war before threatening Trump, “Even those greater than you have failed to eliminate the Iranian nation. Be careful not to be eliminated yourself!”

The choice of the late ayatollah’s son was a defiant shot across the bow, most believe. “He’s a chip off the old block,” Dr. David Adesnik shook his head on Monday’s “Washington Watch,” “and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. … He’s not necessarily a distinguished religious thinker,” the vice president at the Foundation for Defense of the Democracies warned. “He’s someone who’s made his way by being put in positions of power by his father and managing them relatively well, at least from his father’s perspective. I think you would count him among the hardest of the hardliners in the regime. His choice is an indication that other hardliners in the Revolutionary Guard and outside the Revolutionary Guard are continuing to steer this war in a direction of further confrontation, not one of any compromise.”

He added, “If President Trump wanted there to be a [moderate] who might be interested in a resolution, this is not his man.”

It all raises the question: where is this headed, and what does victory even look like? Adesnik isn’t sure. “I regret to say I have a fair amount of uncertainty. … I think we’ve been hoping to some extent the Iranian people would come out, renew their protests, and overthrow the regime, but of course, that would mean doing it while there’s fighting going on. And it’s not entirely clear. How long will we persist? Would we cut a deal that perhaps ended the war and left Mojtaba Khamenei, the new leader, in power? Or are we really going all the way to the end?”

Trump defined success as an Iran that’s incapable and unwilling to develop nuclear weapons, but he also had strong advice for the country’s oppressed people. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations.”

Either way, this administration and its allies are changing the course of history. “Even if the regime hangs on,” Abrams suggests, “its pretense to be the dominant regional power — with a huge ballistic missile array and a nuclear weapons program — will have been shattered. While we cannot predict the date of its collapse,” he goes on, “whether that takes weeks, months, or years, that collapse has been brought closer. The credit belongs to Donald Trump, who has made a bold and risky decision that deserves firm support.”