Social Conservatives and the Iran War
By Peter Wolfgang ( bio - articles - email ) | Mar 06, 2026
It’s going well so far, isn’t it? It always goes well. At first.
Nevertheless, I wish he hadn’t done it.
I am referring to President Trump’s decision to launch Operation Epic Fury, the joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran that has, thus far, decapitated Iran’s leadership and damaged its missile infrastructure, naval forces, and military command systems so as to…well, to do what, exactly?
Don’t get me wrong. Some of my earliest political memories from my childhood are of the Iranian hostage crisis. Our fellow Americans blindfolded and frog-marched in front of the cameras, the morning newspapers and evening news declaring “America Held Hostage, Day [X],” the images of Iranian terrorists burning our flag and chanting “Death to America.” I remember the massacre of our marines in Beirut in my early teens. In my 30s, soldiers who had lost limbs to Iranian-made IEDs in the Iraq War were a common sight.
I don’t mourn the death of Iran’s wicked leaders. I am glad for the possibility of greater stability and fewer threats of terrorism and nuclear destruction, if that should be the result. But will it be? And what will the Iran War mean for the domestic politics of Catholic causes that are, for better or worse, yoked to the political fortunes of President Trump? We have seen this movie before, and it did not end well for us.
Seven years ago I gave an interview to the Stephen Herreid Show that was titled “Neocon Foreign Policy KILLS Social Conservatism.” It was a discussion of an article I had written for Crisis Magazine on how decades of American military interventionism had been disastrous both abroad and at home. Interventions like the Iraq War had destabilized entire regions, empowered America’s enemies, brought death and destruction to indigenous Christians, and politically discredited social conservatives who were associated with those wars.
I was hardly alone. Every Catholic ex-neocon turned born again-Buchananite who voted for Trump felt the same way. We voted for Trump three times because we thought it would mean the end of endless U.S. interventions in the Middle East. And yet, somehow, here we are again.
Yes, I know. It’s different when Trump does it. He is smarter than George W. Bush. He doesn’t believe in the “You break it, you own it” rule. He doesn’t put boots on the ground. He doesn’t pour enormous amounts of American blood and treasure into stupid wars. He’s a quick in-and-out guy. He showed this in Venezuela this year and in his earlier intervention in Iran last year.
That is what we are being told, anyway. And I hope it is true. In fairness to Trump, it is possible to overcorrect, to overlearn lessons from recent history. I think of Tucker Carlson, for instance, as a walking, talking, overcorrection.
Nor am I a stranger to nuance. In fact, I seem to hold an almost-unique niche in Catholic discourse. I am pro-Israel. But pro-Israel Catholics tend to be neocons and I am a populist. I am aligned with Protestant Zionists on domestic fights for the unborn and the family. But I think many Protestant Zionists are actually Israel’s worst enemies, not her best friends, and that they are making it tougher for Israel and for us Catholics who are aligned with them on domestic social issues. I am sympathetic to a form of Zionism myself. But only to the “minimalist Catholic Zionism” outlined by Gavin D’Costa in his recent interview with the aforementioned Stephen Herreid.
And I think launching Operation Epic Fury was a bad idea.
Citing Operation Midnight Hammer—the quick U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities last year—as proof that Trump will not waste American blood and treasure demonstrates the problem. If it was such a success, why are we now engaged in the biggest U.S. military intervention in the Middle East in decades?
But look, I agree that Trump is not Bush. At least not in that sense. I don’t think he will waste American blood and treasure in the same way, or to the same degree, that Bush did.
Where Trump does now remind me of Bush is that we who have sought to re-moralize America and to defend religious liberty—Christians, social conservatives, pro-lifers, pro-family activists—are once again yoked to the political fortunes of a foreign war. As with Bush’s Iraq War, so with Trump’s Iran War. If the ship goes down, we are going down with it.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: axiombob1989 -
Mar. 10, 2026 8:28 PM ET USA
The military action currently underway is defined by two simple, high-stakes objectives. First, it is designed to remove the future nuclear threat once and for all. For years, the specter of a nuclear-armed rogue state has destabilized the Middle East and threatened global security; this operation seeks to dismantle that capability permanently. Second, the goal is to facilitate regime change that will be West-friendly and not bent on destroying us at the first opportunity.
-
Posted by: philtech2465 -
Mar. 07, 2026 3:42 PM ET USA
Trump didn't get Congressional approval nor did he have clear goals for the war (that don't change whenever he opened his mouth). George W Bush had both when he went into Iraq. (BTW, I'm a Catholic Reaganite conservative who voted for Bush twice but never voted for Trump. Maybe that makes me a neocon?).
-
Posted by: howwhite5517 -
Mar. 07, 2026 8:01 AM ET USA
What if Iran had developed a nuclear weapon deliverable by an ICBM anywhere in the world? What then. Time was not on our side.
-
Posted by: Crusader -
Mar. 07, 2026 6:48 AM ET USA
I believe that those opposed to Epic Fury should state clearly that they are in favor of allowing Iran to continue killing thousands of their own citizens, funding and supplying weapons to terrorist organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah) issuing fatwas (murder instructions) against others, and so on. And, they cannot say no, we are in favor of more diplomacy and dialogue because that has been going on for years with no results. That would be advocating doing nothing.
-
Posted by: catholicculture.org9355 -
Mar. 06, 2026 11:49 PM ET USA
Yeah. We shouldn't have intervened. We should just let another 43000 Iranians die this month. And the next. And the next. Eventually the regime will run out of people to shoot and it'll stop. They'll run out of rape-victims to hang from cranes because you know, being raped is a woman's fault. Children, teens, older people murdered in the streets for peacefully protesting, trapped in a marketplace and set on fire. Just walk past. Not my problem, not my neighbor. Luke 10:30.
-
Posted by: Randal Mandock -
Mar. 06, 2026 5:55 PM ET USA
Decapitated Iran's leadership? We knocked off a few guys. There are many more stepping up to the plate. Precision guided missiles aimed only at military targets? Give me a break. Unarmed ship in the Indian ocean, an entire girl's school, how many police stations and hospitals? Oh yeah, it's just collateral damage. No big deal. The Iranian soul is not a soul bound for heaven, after all. But they threatened us with nuclear annihilation. I thought that was knocked out last summer. Wrong narrative.


