Mark Levin: War in Iran Was Necessary, Was Inevitable & Is Going Well

The Mark Levin Show. Image by Mark Levin, Public Domain, Wikipedia

Video Loads at Bottom

Mark opens his Sunday March 11 show by arguing that preemptive military action against Iran is clearly justified. He highlights that the Iranian negotiators recently told U.S. envoys that the country had enough enriched uranium to produce 11 nuclear bombs within ten days and that they could potentially have enough material for about 25 bombs within several weeks.  In the same moment, the Iranian negotiators refused to halt their nuclear program or even to transfer the enriched material to third parties.

Failing to deal with the clear and imminent threat from a rogue terrorist nation such as Iran – to have ready access to up to more than two dozen nuclear weapons – would have been dangerously irresponsible.  With this in mind, Mark recalls the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis and quotes remarks by John F. Kennedy – warning that the greatest danger can sometimes be doing nothing in the face of an emerging nuclear threat.

From there, Mark turns to address the attacks against Pres. Trump’s actions in Iran being raised by prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries, accusing them of undermining the US military during wartime. Mark also addresses complaints about rising gasoline prices due to the conflict are misplaced.  He warns that the concern of the American people should be more focused upon the risk of nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical terror state than upon modest temporary increasing prices at the pump. He further notes that previous Democratic energy and environmental policies were responsible for having raised fuel prices significantly due solely for ideological reasons unrelated to national security. Examples of such arbitrary political policy choices significantly impacting gas prices would include restrictions on oil and gas production, the cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, and the U.S. decision to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement.

Mark also addresses the constitutional debate over presidential authority to wage war. He reminds his viewers that the president has broad powers to deploy military force without a formal declaration of war from Congress, noting that the United States has engaged in many major conflicts, including the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, and the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), without such declarations, with the last formal declaration occurring during World War II. He also chastises the use of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, noting that it attempts to limit presidential authority in a way that conflicts with the Constitution. Mark ends this segment by accusing Democrats of having weakened national security while seeking to defund or restrict Federal agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard, institutions – which all play critical a role in protecting the country from terrorism – and other unacceptable threats.

In his second segment, Mark speaks with the esteemed retired four-star US Army general Jack Keane, who had recently been appointed to serve on the 2026 Commission on the National Defense Strategy – by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Keane argues that the US and Israeli military campaign against Iran is proceeding very successfully, and largely according to plan. He describes the operation as “conditions-based,” meaning it will continue until its objectives are achieved – rather than ending on a fixed timetable.

Keane says the campaign has two main goals. The first is to destroy Iran’s ability to conduct offensive military operations by systematically targeting its weapons infrastructure, including ballistic missiles, drones, naval capabilities, and nuclear-related facilities, as well as manufacturing centers producing military equipment. According to him, this effort has already sharply reduced Iran’s ability to retaliate, with missile launches reportedly down by about 90 percent and drone activity also greatly reduced, while only a small fraction of attacks are able to penetrate defensive systems. He adds that casualties among US, Israeli, and civilian populations have been relatively limited – compared with what Iran had planned, which he says included mass attacks on Gulf states, American bases, and Israeli cities.

The second major effort, which Keane says is largely being led by Israel, focuses on dismantling the internal organizations that sustain the Iranian regime. He reminds us that Israeli strikes are targeting the institutions and security structures that uphold the rouge unelected government – with the aim of creating conditions that could eventually lead to a current regime collapse (as planned).

Keane also states that the regime’s current priority is survival. He explains that Iran’s recent attacks on Persian Gulf countries have been intended to apply pressure on regional governments, as well as the broader international community, to push the United States to end the war – and thereby preserve the current Iranian regime. Keane states that this strategy has failed in this objective, noting that some Gulf States are instead quietly assisting in offensive actions against Iran. Keane also challenges that Iran and its allies, including Russia, are attempting to exploit political divisions within the United States – through information campaigns designed to increase domestic pressure on the Trump administration to halt the conflict. It is not working well for the lying unpatriotic naysayers.

Keane concludes – by reminding his viewers that the Iranian leadership remains ideologically committed to its current course, and is unlikely to change. He challenges that even if the regime were allowed to survive the war, it would eventually return to prioritizing the rebuilding of its military and nuclear programs. This is the reason the ongoing campaign has been designed to not only weaken Iran militarily, but to also target its internal security forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and other internal repression units, all of which could be used to suppress potential popular uprisings.  This would provide the Iranian citizens an opportunity to challenge the regime in the later situation of the Campaign.

In his final segment, Mark talks with Rebeccah L. Heinrichs, who is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of its Keystone Defense Initiative. Heinrichs focuses on the role being played by American military technology and strategy in the current war. She argues that the United States has unmatched capabilities, which have been used to strike Iranian nuclear infrastructure, as well as their air defenses and naval infrastructure. She explains that US forces first targeted Iran’s air defense and command systems using advanced long-range weapons, and can now conduct additional operations more efficiently with limited risks. According to Heinrichs, the strategy reflects careful planning, which allows the United States to weaken Iran’s ability to threaten Americans & their allies, without committing large ground forces – or even any. She also explains that the timing of the strike prevented Iran from rebuilding its defenses with help from partners such as China and Russia, and also argues that the conflict builds on the regional alignment originally created by the Abraham Accords.