In an opinion piece, Bryan Brulotte posits that going to war with Iran is a necessary risk to prevent a hostile regime from achieving nuclear capabilities and thereby destabilizing global order. The piece outlines how the current military actions led by the U.S. and Israel against Iranian infrastructure signify an open confrontation rather than a covert operation, emphasizing the significance of these strikes in addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions and military reach. Brulotte contends that the critics' concerns regarding potential aftermath scenarios—such as chaos and fragmentation in Iran—are based on a misconception that the current status quo is stable.

He argues that in truth, the Iranian regime has been a longstanding exporter of instability throughout the Middle East, leveraging its proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza to exert influence and disrupt regional stability. Rather than viewing military action as a step towards chaos, Brulotte believes it clarifies intentions and could lead to a more stable outcome long-term by dismantling Iran's capabilities to instigate further regional conflicts. By articulating these points, he aims to position military action not merely as a last resort but as a proactive measure against the Iranian threat.

Brulotte’s conclusions about the necessity of confronting Iran draw attention to the broader implications for international security and the challenges posed by nuclear proliferation. His argument suggests that in the grander scheme of geopolitics, weighing the risks of military engagement against the threats posed by Iran may favor the former, as a decisive action could prevent a potentially catastrophic escalation in regional tensions stemming from a nuclear-armed Iran.