ByDUVI HONIG

JULY 7, 2026 15:00

Mr. Vice President,

Mark Levin has sounded an alarm on Iran. I hope his words reach you clearly.

Levin contends that Iran has never dealt honestly at the table. Instead it has used talks to ease sanctions, protect its leadership, and advance its aims over time.

Even if you do not accept every detail, the core caution merits close review. The chief risk lies not only in what Iran states during talks but in what it achieves while others rely solely on dialogue.

On June 30, addressing Marines at Naval Air Station Oceana and in a broadcast interview, you noted that if Iran tries to restore its nuclear efforts, bars inspectors, or renews threats to shipping lanes, President Trump retains choices.

You also stressed that forces should not be committed without a clear goal. This stance shows care. Prolonged conflicts have worn down families, burdened troops, and split the nation.

Power must never be mistaken for haste.

Yet with respect, Mr. Vice President, possessing choices differs from possessing time.

America has already shown it can hit Iran. That fact stands. The issue now centers on whether America will safeguard the advances already made.

Successes in combat are not always lost in fighting. They often slip away later when leaders treat one strong action as a final fix.

Achieving the strike counts as one success. Securing lasting stability afterward presents a separate test.

The latest action altered the balance. Key sites suffered harm. Defense systems faced real setbacks. Tehran learned its goals lie within American reach.

These results count. Yet history will assess them not by harm done in one strike but by whether Iran is stopped from recovery.

Here time emerges as the central test for America.

Iran's leaders have endured upheavals, harsh sanctions, isolation, digital attacks, targeted removals, secret missions, and direct strikes.

Their main edge has never been better arms or larger forces. It has been endurance. They plan across decades while elected governments often focus on voting cycles.

This gap has shaped nearly every clash between Iran and the West.

Tehran knows administrations shift. Attention fades. Coalitions loosen. Economies rebound. Headlines change.

It sees that battlefield wins often spark calls for talks, eased penalties, and a return to routine.

Each break offers a chance to recover, steady finances, bolster allies, upgrade arms, and pursue long-range plans.

That explains why force alone never suffices.

HEADING

You rightly called Tehran's style a Persian negotiating move. This view should shape policy.

Diplomacy holds value. Yet it works only with strict checks, firm follow-through, and penalties that are fast and certain.

Deals cannot rest on trust. They must rest on enforcement.

The aim cannot stop at slowing Iran's plans. Slowing is not a plan. The aim must turn today's battlefield results into lasting strategic wins.

This calls for ongoing intelligence ties with Israel and regional partners, full inspections, and a clear readiness to act on violations.

Deterrence holds only when the other side believes the threat.

You set clear lines: no nuclear rebuild, no blocking inspectors, no shipping threats. These standards fit the situation.

Yet lines lose force if Tehran decides they will not be upheld. Trust is judged in Tehran, not at briefings in Washington.

Israel grasps this because it has faced it often. Israelis know quiet periods can let foes regroup.

They know pauses can be used, pacts twisted, and words ignored. Hope alone never secures safety. Checks, watchfulness, and firmness matter more.

This does not oppose talks. History shows talks have stopped wars and built ties. But strong talks always rest on one base: the other side must know breaking terms brings quick costs.

The United States holds top military tools, strong intelligence, and the best alliance web. These strengths stay with America.

The question is whether they will lock in gains already won or let those gains fade through inaction.

Stopping Iran from gaining nuclear arms is no party goal. It serves America, Israel, moderate Arab nations, and all countries that need stability in a vital region.

Mr. Vice President, your team has shown strength. The action against Iran proved America can and will move when interests require it. This result deserves notice.

Yet history rarely recalls strikes only for their accuracy. It recalls whether they shifted events or simply postponed them.

You still hold options.

What you lack is unlimited time.

The opening created by recent action is uncommon. If guarded with steady will, it may stand as the point when Iran's nuclear aims met lasting defeat.

If not, later generations may see it as one more pause in a struggle that never truly ended.

Success here will not be judged by what America removed.

It will be judged by what Iran is kept from restoring.

The writer is the founder and CEO of the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce.