Here’s a summary of the argument of “Seven Myths”: The conflict operates on two levels. On the battlefield, it pits American and Israeli forces against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Ideologically, it pits American conservatism—represented by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—against a coalition of transnational progressives and restraint-oriented voices on the right. Despite surface differences, these groups converge in opposing American global leadership, military force, and close partnership with Israel, advancing nearly identical arguments that downplay Iranian aggression and attribute conflict to U.S. and Israeli actions. Critics have built a storyline around seven persistent myths: 1. This was a “war of choice.”
 The operation addressed two interlocking imperatives: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and neutralizing the rapidly expanding “overmatch” its drone and ballistic missiles achieved against US and allied forces. This arsenal threatened to overwhelm the defenses of Israel, the United States, and Gulf partners, creating a “zone of immunity” for Irans nuclear weapons program that would permanently close the window for effective action. 2. The JCPOA had moderated Iran and stabilized the Middle East before Trump abandoned it. The timeline and outcomes demonstrate otherwise. Major advances, including enrichment to 60 percent uranium, occurred under the Biden administration. The deal and its de facto continuation generated revenue that funded missile and drone programs, proxy networks, and the strategic posture enabling large-scale regional conflict, including the October 7, 2023, attacks. 3. Biden extracted America from wars in the Middle East.
 Through jts proxies Iran launched hundreds of attacks against U.S. personnel and assets between 2021 and 2025, the vast majority after October 7, 2023. These included strikes on American bases and naval vessels—actions that, in any prior era, would have been recognized as open conflict. 4. Tehran was ready to compromise.
 Recent proposals offered only temporary and reversible concessions on uranium stockpiles and enrichment levels in exchange for sanctions relief, while leaving intact the regime’s missile and drone arsenal, proxy network, and overall military-industrial complex. 5. Israel dragged America into the war.
 Strategic interests were fundamentally aligned. Iranian missiles and overmatch capabilities posed an immediate, shared threat to both nations. The United States operated as the senior partner in a synchronized campaign, and the 2026 National Defense Strategy identifies Israel as a model self-reliant ally capable of high-intensity operations with limited American support. 6. Confronting Iran distracts from the challenge posed by China.
 The Middle East and the Indo-Pacific are interconnected theaters. China supplies critical components for Iran’s missile program and benefits from disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, thereby strengthening its leverage over energy routes essential to U.S. allies in Asia. 7. Trump and Netanyahu are warmongering megalomaniacs with no strategy.
 The campaign achieved its core objectives: halting Iran’s advance toward nuclear weapons capability, significantly degrading its ballistic missile program, weakening its proxy network, and imposing severe economic damage. It reduced an imminent threat without the catastrophic escalation forecast by critics. The American-Israeli operation has lowered immediate dangers, secured vital energy routes, and demonstrated the effectiveness of alliances built on capable, burden-sharing partners. Prevailing critiques, driven more by ideology than by results, undermine U.S. credibility, weaken deterrence, and serve the interests of America’s adversaries. History will record that decisive action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program protected the national interest far more effectively than prolonged restraint.