President Trump warned Iran.

Trump then followed through.

And Donald Trump declared war on Iran, and you won’t believe what happened next.

President Trump made the most consequential decision of his presidency by announcing America was launching a regime change war against Iran.

The strike set off a debate among Trump supporters.

That’s because one of Trump’s central appeals was his opposition to the Iraq War and promise to avoid endless wars in the Middle East.

Some Trump supporters sounded more supportive of the strikes.

The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles acknowledged that if this war went south, it would end Trump’s Presidency the way the Iraq War destroyed Bush’s Presidency.

“If this goes south, President Trump is risking not only his foreign policy credibility but perhaps his whole presidential legacy,” Knowles admitted.

But Knowles went on to say that Trump bet big and that while this war carried a huge risk. It could come with a huge reward.

Knowles claimed a successful regime change war in Iran could reorder geopolitics in the United States favor in the most significant manner since Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.

“If this works, if the United States ousts the Ayatollah, who has been an enemy of the United States since that regime took power in 1979, if the United States succeeds in regime change in Iran … this will be the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of any president in our lifetime since the end of the Cold War,” Knowles concluded.

The initial strikes achieved success.

A bombing run killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 

Taking out the Iranian regime and the Maduro government in Venezuela denied Communist China access to proxies it uses to cause trouble for the United States.

Knowles’ colleague at the Daily Wire, Matt Walsh, disagreed.

Walsh argued the administration didn’t adequately make the case for war and that officials assured Americans the war was necessary to protect Israel’s security.

“What nobody has even come close to sufficiently explaining is how this war will first and foremost directly benefit American citizens. That is a case that needed to have been made clearly and convincingly before this move, and it wasn’t. We’re also told how this will benefit Israel, and I’m sure it will,” Walsh began in a post on X.

Walsh went on to say that since he was an American, he needed an explanation about how this war was good for America.

“But Israel is not America. What does it do for America? How does it help us? That needs to be explained to us. And it isn’t “panicking” or demonstrating “disloyalty” to demand those very basic answers about how American tax money, and potentially American lives, are being spent,” Walsh continued.

Walsh wrote that Americans were told that Iran’s nuclear program was a threat and that the strike President Trump ordered last June destroyed said program.

“We hear about the danger of a nuclear Iran, but that’s odd because we were told that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had already been set back decades. We hear that this war will be over quickly and easily because Iran is powerless, which I hope and pray is the case, and maybe it will be,” Walsh contended.

Walsh took issue with the idea that supporters of the war pushed that Iran was a paper tiger, since if Iran was so weak, why did America need to fight a war against a fraudulent power?

“But that’s odd, too, because if Iran is such a paper tiger, then how were they a danger to us in the first place? It seems hard to argue both that Iran is an existential threat to the United States and that we can topple them in 20 minutes with no casualties or negative downstream effects,” Waslh added.

Finally, Waslh worried about the political considerations.

Before the strike, polls showed 70 percent of Americans opposed war with Iran.

Walsh worried that Democrats could campaign against the Iran War as they did in 2006 and 2008 and ride opposition to power.

Any trade of a free Iran for Democrats running Congress was a bad one for Republicans, Walsh argued. 

“Also, the political calculation really matters here. A huge majority of Americans oppose this. That’s just a fact. If it costs Republicans in 26 and 28, then, no matter how things work out in Iran, it will not have been worth it. A free Iran at the cost of Democrat rule here at home is a bad deal. A free Iran for an unfree America would be just about the worst trade of the century,” Walsh concluded.

The first round of strikes resulted in the death of Supreme Leader Khamenei and no U.S. casualties.

Americans will watch the war play out, and the debate among Trump supporters will likely continue.

West Wing Daily will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics. Please bookmark our site, make us your homepage, and forward our content to your friends on social media and by email.