Shalom Fordow
Trump's Iran Strike Doctrine: Why He May Be the Most Pro-Israel President in History
It’s not hard to understand why people opposed Donald Trump. In 2016, many believed he was a danger to democracy. The rhetoric was reckless. The norms were shattered. The tone was unpresidential. For some, it felt like the republic itself was on the line.
But while the country argued over his tweets, something else was happening—quieter, more durable, less discussed.
He moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, ending decades of political theater. He brokered the Abraham Accords, achieving real diplomatic recognition between Israel and the Arab world without surrendering a single inch of land. He ordered the strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian general who built a global empire of terror through militias, missiles, and proxy wars.
These weren’t symbolic moves. They were real. Measurable. Strategic. And for those who cared about the balance of power in the Middle East, they mattered.
Then Biden won. And for a while, the world exhaled.
But the clarity faded.
In the days after October 7, as Israeli families buried the murdered and searched for the kidnapped, the White House spoke in legalese. Words like “proportionality” were weighed with more care than the lives of the hostages. The party splintered. Support was qualified. Condemnations were muffled. And the diplomatic process that once promised to curb Iran’s ambitions seemed to drift back toward the same blind optimism that had defined the Obama-era deal.
Trump made it clear which side he was on—during the campaign, and again as the conflict escalated. Iran would not get a nuclear weapon.
He called for peace. He gave Iran sixty days to de-escalate, to step back, to stop. On day sixty-one, Israel struck.
There was no ambiguity about where the United States stood.
Netanyahu had been Trump’s first foreign visitor as president. He was also the only world leader to return twice so far during Trump’s second term. It wasn’t theater. It was alignment. Strategic, ideological, personal. When Israel launched a second wave of strikes targeting Iran’s centrifuge production in Isfahan, it wasn’t just retaliation—it was coordination.
So when the world asked whether America would get involved, Trump didn’t posture. He gave a two-week window for Iran to back off. They didn’t. Within seventy-two hours, he gave the go-ahead.
B-2 Spirit bombers—stealth, long-range, nuclear-capable—launched from an American Air Force Base. They refueled mid-air, crossed oceans, and struck with precision.
The Fordow nuclear enrichment site was among at least three high-value targets hit with 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators, bunker-busting bombs designed for exactly this mission. The strikes were confirmed by U.S. officials. Trump called the operation “successful.”
The world got its answer.
This wasn’t about rhetoric. It wasn’t about campaign optics. It was about the simplest, clearest concept in global security: deterrence backed by force. Fordow was fortified, buried, defended. Now, it’s disabled.
And the question writes itself: why build a nuclear facility three hundred feet beneath the ground, protected by reinforced concrete, immune to all but the most advanced bunker-busting bombs—if there’s nothing to hide?
You don’t fortify transparency. You fortify secrets.
Anyone defending that kind of concealment has already forfeited moral clarity.
This was not just a strike on a nuclear facility. It was a message to the source.
Iran is not a rogue actor. It is the head of the snake.
For decades, the regime has funded, armed, and directed terror against Americans and Western democracies through a network of loyal proxies. Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Houthis in Yemen. Hamas in Gaza. Militias in Iraq and Syria. Assassination plots in Europe and North America. Drone attacks. Cyberattacks. Ballistic missiles. American soldiers killed. Israeli families murdered. Dissidents silenced abroad. This is not ideology. It is a campaign.
If the world could agree that the Middle East was more stable without Saddam Hussein, and that justice was served when Osama bin Laden was eliminated, then the logic must hold: the Iranian regime poses the same threat to order, to peace, to human life.
Trump wasn’t waiting for permission. He wasn’t chasing statements from Brussels. He was making decisions in Washington.
And this is the part many miss.
It’s easy to dislike Trump. It’s easy to disagree with his style, his history, his every word. But on Iran—and on Israel—he’s been consistent. He dismantled the nuclear deal. He applied maximum pressure on Tehran. He drew red lines and made clear they would be enforced. He moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He delivered the Abraham Accords. And he stood by Israel—not with qualifiers, not with conditions, but without hesitation.
He may be the most pro-Israel president in American history.
This wasn’t escalation for its own sake. It was the reassertion of American strength in a region that only respects it. Iran believed the West would blink. Trump didn’t.
Anyone surprised by this doesn’t understand the president who refused to be seen as weak, stood firmly with Israel, and treated Iran not as a misunderstood rival—but as the architect of terror.
You don’t have to admire him to recognize what this moment demanded.
It demanded certainty. It demanded speed. It demanded a leader who knew the difference between diplomacy and delusion.
Trump gave Iran sixty days. He waited. He warned. And when the time came, he acted—not with ambiguity, not with apology, but with purpose.
He showed the world exactly where he stands. With Israel. With strength. With the conviction that nuclear weapons must never fall into the hands of Islamic fanatics who traffic in terror and chant for genocide.
This was not a one-off strike. It was a doctrine. A message. A line in the sand that won’t be redrawn. Every decision carries risk. But inaction carries more.
President Donald J. Trump made one thing clear to Iran: he will Fight, Fight, Fight.