admin
The clip on Newsmax’s The Big Take featuring Rep. Derrick Van Orden landed like a splash of cold water for anyone still naïve about fighting wars by committee. Van Orden made the blunt point conservatives have been saying for years: critical infrastructure like power plants can be dual-use — they keep radars, logistics hubs, and air defenses running — and may therefore be lawful military targets when used to sustain an enemy’s warfighting capacity. Viewers should be grateful someone in Congress is willing to speak plainly about the mechanics of deterrence on a network that tells the story other outlets won’t.
President Trump’s public warning that the U.S. could take out Iranian power plants threw cold water on the appeasers in one fell swoop, and good for him for showing the spine voters sent back to Washington. The threat was not empty saber-rattling but a clear signal that the administration understands how to impose cost and keep the peace through strength — a lesson the last administration never learned. Mainstream reporting confirmed the president’s tough posture and the seriousness with which officials are treating strikes on energy infrastructure as an escalation option.
Of course, Tehran responded loudly, threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz and to strike vital infrastructure across the region if its own facilities were hit. Iran’s leadership has publicly vowed wide-ranging retaliation, making plain the stakes for global energy markets and every American driver filling up at the pump. That kind of blackmail only underscores why leaders like Van Orden and President Trump insist that deterrence sometimes requires decisive, uncomfortable options.
Legalists and humanitarians on television love to wag fingers about “indiscriminate” attacks, but international law has long recognized dual-use targets when an operation yields a concrete military advantage and meets proportionality tests. Conservatives aren’t asking for wanton destruction of civilians — we’re demanding clarity that our military can sever the enemy’s capacity to wage war while minimizing civilian harm, and that those who shelter behind civilian populations and infrastructure face consequences. That sober, strategic calculus is what Van Orden defended on the air, and it’s exactly the kind of thinking the left refuses to engage with honestly.
Enough with the moral preening from coastal elites who tell us America must apologize and retreat while our enemies plot destruction. Senators and representatives appearing on the same Newsmax program have rightly praised the administration’s resolve and reminded the country that strength stabilizes peace; leadership means making hard calls, not selling out American security for approval from the diplomatic choir. Conservative voices on the show made clear the choice is between decisive action that deters future aggression and the endless cycle of concessions that invites more attacks.
Let there be no mistake: protecting Americans and keeping global energy flowing are non-negotiable priorities for any serious government. The administration’s posture has already helped calm markets and signaled to allies and foes alike that the era of timidity is over; Congress should rally behind competent, tough policy that defends our people and our prosperity. If Washington refuses to back real deterrence, it will be ordinary Americans who pay the bill in blood and dollars.
Patriots don’t root for weakness. We applaud leaders who understand that liberty requires will and readiness, and we stand with lawmakers who tell the truth about the harsh realities of war. Let the critics shriek — strength kept the peace for decades, and it will do so again if we let it.
