Opinion>Opinions - National Security

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

In Iran, what does ‘finish the job’ even mean?

Comments:

by Douglas MacKinnon, opinion contributor - 04/04/26 12:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Douglas MacKinnon, opinion contributor - 04/04/26 12:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

Getty Images

US President Donald Trump during a prime-time address to the nation in the Cross Hall of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. Trump said the war in Iran is “very close” to completion, seeking to reassure Americans about his handling of a conflict that has roiled financial markets and jeopardized his political standing with American voters. Photographer: Alex Brandon/AP Photo/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Since the war against Iran, “Operation Epic Fury,” began on Feb. 28, a number of pundits have declaratively stated that the U.S. must now “finish the job.”

The latest of these pronouncements come from radio host and columnist Hugh Hewitt. To be sure, I have long had a great deal of respect for Hewitt and his opinions. That said, like all others advocating to “finish the job” in Iran, Hewitt provides zero specifics as to how one would accomplish that monumental and blood-soaked feat.

Hewitt says: “Simply put: Iran is as evil a regime as exists on the planet and, given that it is run by religious fanatics with a peculiar theology rooted in end-times eschatology and ‘resistance’ up to and especially including martyrdom, it is a uniquely dangerous regime. It cannot be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction or an arsenal of conventional weapons sufficient to deter normal regimes from stopping it from obtaining WMD, especially nuclear weapons.”

Why does that sound so familiar?

Just before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003 during the George W. Bush administration, a number of pundits, editorial writers, “experts” and neocons were advocating for that invasion to “overthrow” the “evil” Saddam Hussein and “free” Iraq. Many seemed to view the process as some sort of game or sporting event with human pawns to be played — and sacrificed — at will.

But such “experts” advocating for an invasion from their luxurious offices thousands of miles from the pending battlefields have no skin in that macabre game. They are not in the military; they would not be walking point in the coming combat, nor would many of their relatives or friends.

The pundits and various politicians of that time did eventually get their way. But at what tragic cost? Approximately 4,500 American soldiers killed, and 32,000 wounded; between 100,000 and 500,000 Iraqi deaths, depending upon the study; and a Middle East that is destabilized to this day.

Now, more than two decades later, those same “experts” want to wage war with Iran.

I strongly agree with Hewitt and others that the murderous regime controlling Iran is one of the most “evil” in history. But when dealing with “evil,” it is often the devil in the details that matters most — as in, what are the specific military steps one would take to “finish the job?” Who decides when the job is “finished?” And, importantly, what is considered an acceptable number of dead and wounded American military and Iranian civilians?

Back in the late 1960s, the Vietnam War came to be known as “the living-room war” because the television networks of the time were showcasing some of the horrors of that conflict — and the political deception surrounding it — to tens of millions of Americans. Americans quickly soured on the conflict once they saw young soldiers being killed and wounded in combat.

Now, five decades after the Vietnam War and more than two decades after the invasion of Iraq, the public could potentially see the slaughter of American troops on their phones, computers and televisions in real time, via the cameras on first-person-view combat drones. Russia and Ukraine have built millions of these deadly, relatively inexpensive fiber-optic controlled weapons of combat carrying rocket-propelled grenade rounds of high explosive shrapnel charges. It is estimated that Iran has tens of thousands of such drones.

What if “finish the job” means thousands of American troops are exposed to these lethal weapons should they become “boots on the ground” engaged in combat? And the “evil” regime in Iran posts video after video of young American soldiers being blown to bits?

All due respect to Hewitt — I truly believe his is a needed voice in the greater town square of our nation — but to him and the others continually advocating that we “finish the job” in Iran, please tell me precisely what that entails and how far