Trump Gets Senate Green Light as Iran War Escalates

My friends, the Senate voted yesterday on whether to restrain President Trump’s authority in the escalating conflict with Iran. The result was a 53–47 vote rejecting the effort to limit him.

That’s not a constitutional crisis. That’s the constitutional system working exactly the way it’s supposed to work.

Congress had the opportunity to step in. They debated it. They voted. And they chose not to limit the president’s actions.

That’s oversight.

It’s also something the media seems unwilling to acknowledge because the narrative they prefer is that we’re somehow living through a breakdown of our government. But the truth is simpler: when the legislative branch reviews presidential authority and decides not to restrict it, the system is functioning as designed.

Senator Rand Paul (R) voted to restrain the president, while Senator John Fetterman (D) voted against doing so. I don’t suddenly hate Rand Paul for his vote, and I don’t suddenly become a fan of John Fetterman. But it does show that moments like this can sometimes cut across traditional political lines.

Meanwhile, events on the ground continue to escalate.

One of the more remarkable developments reported recently was a U.S. submarine sinking an Iranian naval vessel in international waters off the coast of Sri Lanka using a $4.2 million torpedo. If the reports are accurate, it would be the first submarine sinking of its kind by the United States since World War II.

Iran, for its part, continues to lash out across the region, targeting U.S. interests and attempting to create instability wherever possible. They’re trying to demonstrate that the United States cannot protect everyone.

But this is also what happens when a regime begins to lose its command and control capabilities. Their leadership structure has been severely disrupted, and what remains often looks like chaos and retaliation.

That brings us to the real question.

Not how this war ends.

But how it’s won.

Ending a war and winning a war are not necessarily the same thing. History teaches that if a conflict ends without addressing the underlying threat, the problem simply reappears later.

Iran has a long track record of delay, deception, and defiance when it comes to international agreements—especially surrounding nuclear development. We saw it during the Obama administration’s nuclear deal. We’ve seen it through decades of proxy warfare carried out by groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

At some point, the pattern becomes undeniable.

Negotiations only work when both sides are negotiating in good faith. When one side repeatedly lies and continues pursuing the same dangerous objectives, talking alone doesn’t solve the problem.

And a negotiation is utter foolishness when one side openly supports the total annihilation of the other.

But today’s show wasn’t just about geopolitics. It was about leadership.

Leadership is often treated like an intellectual contest—as if the smartest person in the room should always be the one in charge.

But intelligence alone has never been enough.

The real test of leadership isn’t simply understanding what needs to be done. The real test is having the courage and resolve to actually do it.

We’re watching a moment right now where that principle is being tested on the world stage

Time will tell how this conflict unfolds. But one thing is certain: moments like this reveal the difference between occupying a position of authority and actually leading.

(I wrote more about this leadership principel in yesterday’s issue of The Inner Circle—and you can read that here if you’re interested.)

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

🇺🇸 Senate votes 53–47 to back Trump’s authority in Iran conflict
⚖️ Congressional oversight works exactly as designed
🌊 U.S. submarine reportedly sinks Iranian vessel in rare strike
☢️ Why negotiations alone won’t stop nuclear ambitions
🧠 Intelligence vs. leadership: why courage matters more
🔥 The difference between ending a war and winning one

The Stack of Stuff honors the memory of Rush Limbaugh by keeping his iconic phrase alive — only this time, it’s digital. These links give you context for today’s Toddcast, including pieces that back me up, push back, or simply lay out the facts so you can decide for yourself.

For more on today’s Toddcast, visit today’s Stack on our website and dig in.

Why does business news feel like it’s written for people who already get it?

Morning Brew changes that.

It’s a free newsletter that breaks down what’s going on in business, finance, and tech — clearly, quickly, and with enough personality to keep things interesting. The result? You don’t just skim headlines. You actually understand what’s going on.

Try it yourself and join over 4 million professionals reading daily.

Check it out

My friends, even death itself has become political for the Radical Left. Legendary Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz passed away yesterday. Holtz was a devout Catholic and supporter of Donald Trump. Apparently that alone is enough to invite outrage.

Delusional commentator Keith Olbermann responded to Holtz’s death on X by calling him a “legendary scumbag.”

Olbermann is vitriolic, searching for relevance, and spiritually troubled. For people like Olbermann, who have nothing substantive to add to the political discourse, the only way to get people talking about you is to say intentionally inflammatory things like this.

But here’s the truth. Criticizing a man on the very day he dies simply because you disagree with his politics is absolutely pathetic. Behavior like that isn’t courageous or convicted. It’s evil and wicked.

When Americans talk about the conflict with Iran, it’s easy to fall into a trap of thinking about the country as a single unified actor.

But Iran is not one thing.

There is the regime — the network of ayatollahs, military commanders, and political elites who have ruled the country since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

And then there are the Iranian people.

For decades, those two groups have not been the same.

The Iranian regime has imposed a rigid theocratic system enforced through secret police, censorship, and the threat of imprisonment or death. Protest movements have erupted repeatedly over the years, only to be crushed by the government with brutal force.

In fact, reports suggest as many as 36,000 Iranians have been killed in recent months during the latest wave of unrest.

That context matters when we talk about the current conflict.

Because what’s happening right now is not just a military confrontation between nations. It may also be creating a moment of vulnerability inside Iran itself.

The regime has lost key leadership figures. Its command structure has been disrupted. Military losses are mounting. And the government is scrambling to maintain control.

Moments like this are rare in authoritarian systems.

History shows that entrenched regimes often appear immovable — until suddenly they aren’t.

That doesn’t mean outside forces can — or should — simply engineer a new government. The United States learned long ago that imposing political change from the outside rarely works the way people hope.

But pressure from outside combined with pressure from within may just be the combination we need to topple a brutal, evil regime.

If change ever comes in Iran, it will ultimately come from the Iranian people themselves — the millions who have lived under oppression for decades and who understand better than anyone what freedom would mean for their country.

Whether that moment arrives now remains to be seen.

But history reminds us that the most powerful force in the world is not always military strength or political strategy.

Sometimes it’s simply a population that has decided it has had enough.