The Stack: Peace Through Strength and the Iran Reckoning

The concept of peace through strength is not theoretical—it is foundational to national security. In today’s Toddcast, Todd explains why a strong and technologically advanced military is essential for protecting the United States and deterring hostile regimes.

Todd begins with reports of Israel’s sophisticated strike against Iranian leadership, highlighting the advanced capabilities used in modern warfare and the intelligence networks that make such operations possible. From hacked surveillance systems to high-altitude missile systems, the story illustrates the level of preparation required to confront adversaries like Iran.

But the broader point goes beyond one operation. Todd argues that American weakness invites aggression, while overwhelming capability deters it. He examines the role of U.S. military bases, aircraft carriers, intelligence networks, and global logistics in maintaining stability.

Todd also discusses the internal power struggle now unfolding in Iran following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, raising the critical question: should the United States influence Iran’s next leader—or step back entirely?

🎧 Listen to Today’s Episode

Skip to Transcript ↓

📰 Stack Links

• How Israel killed Ayatollah Khamenei with a missile from space

• Dramatic video shows 50 fighter jets destroy slain Ayatollah Khamenei’s secret underground bunker

• Operation Epic Fury destroys Iran’s navy and cuts missile attacks by 90% 

• US unleashes Operation Epic Fury, strikes 1,700 Iran targets in 72 hours 

• $4.2M US torpedo detonates under Iranian warship in historic strike 

• Top American admiral says US struck Iranian drone carrier during Epic Fury 

• US hits nearly 2,000 Iranian targets in first 100 hours of Operation Epic Fury 

• Trump says US ground invasion of Iran would be ‘waste of time’

• Trump says he must be involved in picking Iran’s next leader 

• Trump replaces Kristi Noem as Homeland Security secretary

Want to get Stack links and content delivered to your inbox each weekday?

Subscribe to The Inner Circle. It’s free.

📝 Transcript: Peace Through Strength and the Iran Reckoning

The Todd Huff Show – March 6 , 2026

Host: Todd Huff

Todd Huff: My friends, winning this war in Iraq is not something that just happened by accident. This is something that the United States has been investing in for a long time. Not specifically in fighting Iran, but fighting people who want to cause death and destruction to Americans and allies around the globe. I want to talk about this today because this is where the concept of peace through strength comes from and why it matters. It's not just some intellectual pursuit. This is a real, very important foundational premise that we all must accept and get on board with. The first way to peace in the world today is by having—listen, I understand America is not perfect, but we're still a good country—having enough firepower, enough strength, and resolve on the good guys to defeat the bad guys. That's basically what this comes down to.

Todd Huff: I'm going to give you some updates as to what is happening in Iran as well. I'm going to talk a little bit about Kristi Noem, time permitting. And of course anything we don't get to here today we will include in the Inner Circle, which is absolutely free to join. You can join—it’s an email—by texting the word TRUTH to 317-785-1033. Again, text the word TRUTH to 317-785-1033. Okay, that’s where we’re headed today, my friends. But are you tired of spending your hard-earned money at businesses that turn around and support leftist causes? It's exactly why we here at The Todd Huff Show created Freedom Marketplace. It is a free, searchable directory of businesses that share your conservative values—businesses that have vowed not to support leftist candidates or leftist causes. All you have to do is head on over to FreedomMarketplace.net. You can create a login if you'd like, but you don’t have to. There are no strings attached. It’s simply good patriotic businesses pulling in the same direction that you are pushing.

Todd Huff: Check it out today at FreedomMarketplace.net. That’s FreedomMarketplace.net. Liberty and business for all. All right, let’s get into it here today, my friends. I don’t know if you’ve seen this story in the New York Post that will be in the Inner Circle newsletter, along with all the other links to “The Stack,” which are background information on the things we talk about here on the program each and every day. Or you can just go to the New York Post and search for this article. But I want to start by referencing this piece that was published just last night.

Todd Huff: The headline reads: How Israel killed Ayatollah Khamenei with a missile from space. That’s the headline of the article. It’s got a diagram that of course I can’t show you if you’re listening to the program over radio airwaves or as a podcast. But it appears to show something like an F-16 flying high in the atmosphere. From that aircraft, a missile launches and accelerates upward. The missile leaves the atmosphere and then begins cruising in space before locking onto its target. According to the diagram, once the missile locks onto the target, the warhead separates from the booster. Then the warhead basically falls out of space back toward Earth and strikes the target. In the diagram it shows the strike landing on what is labeled the “Presidential Complex” in Tehran, Iran. According to the article, that is how Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was taken out.

Todd Huff: The article explains that the weapon used was capable of traveling into space before returning to Earth and striking the target at extraordinary speed. The impact was reportedly so intense that debris was discovered far away from the original strike location. Israeli sources described the operation as a surprise attack that came after Israel deliberately created the impression that military leadership was standing down for the weekend. According to the report, Israeli defense officials released photos and information suggesting that IDF staff and command leaders were heading home for Shabbat dinner. The goal was deception. While the public narrative suggested that leadership was stepping away for the weekend, preparations for the attack were actually underway behind the scenes.

Todd Huff: What happened next is fascinating. The Iranians apparently bought into the deception. They believed there would not be an imminent attack, and that allowed Israel to carefully monitor movements inside Khamenei’s compound. Israeli intelligence reportedly had access to information about where senior leaders and bodyguards were located and when they arrived at the compound on Pasteur Street in the heart of Tehran. One particular camera in the vicinity proved pivotal in tracking the situation. And here’s something else interesting. I read elsewhere earlier this week—not in The Stack today, but in another report—that Israel had also hacked traffic cameras in Iran. These were cameras the Iranian regime had installed to monitor its own population. By hacking those cameras, Israeli intelligence could watch what was happening in real time without needing personnel physically present on the ground. Think about that for a moment. The regime’s own surveillance infrastructure—systems designed to keep watch over the Iranian people—ended up being used by Israeli intelligence to keep watch over the regime itself. All of that information was transmitted back to Tel Aviv, allowing Israeli officials to determine the perfect moment to strike.

Todd Huff: All of that information was being transmitted back to Tel Aviv, and it allowed Israeli officials to determine the perfect moment to strike. Israeli F-15 jets and other aircraft were deployed at around 7:30 a.m. Iran time, with the aircraft unleashing roughly 30 missiles, including the Blue Sparrow systems that are designed to leave the Earth's atmosphere before returning to strike their target. According to the report, the missiles struck the heart of the ayatollah’s compound roughly two hours later. Now the article goes on with additional details, but I want to pause here for a moment because the bigger takeaway from this story is not just the technology itself. The takeaway is what this represents in terms of military capability. This is the kind of technology that demonstrates what modern warfare actually looks like and why the concept of peace through strength matters in the real world.

Todd Huff: The United States of America—while this particular operation is about Israel—we know that the United States has capabilities that are similar to this or even greater than this. Technologically and militarily speaking, the United States is still the benchmark. You can say Israel is extremely advanced in military technology, intelligence operations, and targeted strikes, and that is certainly true. But the United States is the global measure when it comes to the scale of military power and capability. We have spent decades building a system that allows us to respond to threats anywhere in the world, often faster than most people even realize is possible. And when you read a story like this about a missile leaving the atmosphere and returning to strike a specific compound in Tehran, it serves as a reminder that these capabilities exist for a reason.

Todd Huff: The reason goes all the way back to the founding principles of this country. If you go back to the Constitution of the United States and look at what the founders were trying to accomplish, they laid out a system that recognized something very important about human nature and about government. They understood that governments have responsibilities, but they also understood that power must be limited. The founders had just fought a revolution against the British crown. They had seen firsthand what happens when power becomes centralized in the hands of a ruling class that is not accountable to the people. And instead of replacing one ruling class with another, instead of simply installing themselves as the next group of kings or tyrants, they created a system built on the idea of consent of the governed.

Todd Huff: The idea was radical at the time, and in many ways it still is. The founders said that human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights—rights that do not come from government. Government does not grant those rights. Government does not decide which rights people are allowed to have. Instead, the people themselves give consent to the government to carry out certain limited responsibilities. That means the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. The founders recognized that liberty ultimately comes from God, and that government must operate within boundaries established by the people themselves. After the American Revolution, the first attempt at creating a national government was the Articles of Confederation. That system intentionally limited the power of the federal government because the founders were understandably cautious about creating another central authority that might eventually become tyrannical. But over time it became clear that the Articles of Confederation did not provide enough authority for the national government to effectively carry out its responsibilities. The federal government simply did not have the tools necessary to address certain national issues, including defense and coordination among the states.

Todd Huff: That realization led to the Constitutional Convention. The founders gathered to revise the structure of the government and ultimately produced the Constitution that still governs the United States today. The Constitution gave the federal government slightly more authority than it had under the Articles of Confederation, but the intention was not to create unlimited power. The goal was to create a government that had enough authority to perform its legitimate duties while still remaining accountable to the people who granted that authority in the first place. In other words, the founders were trying to strike a balance between strength and restraint. One of the most important responsibilities listed in the Constitution is the responsibility to provide for the common defense. Even in the preamble, the founders made it clear that one of the primary purposes of the federal government is protecting the nation and its people from external threats. That responsibility is not optional. It is not secondary. It is one of the core reasons the government exists at all. Now, over the years we have certainly expanded government into areas that go far beyond what the founders envisioned. Government today spends enormous amounts of money on programs and initiatives that would have been completely foreign to the men who wrote the Constitution.

Todd Huff: We can talk about examples of that expansion all day long. You can look at government waste, you can look at fraud, you can look at programs that have little or nothing to do with the original constitutional responsibilities of the federal government. There have been reports about Social Security payments going to people who are supposedly over a hundred years old, which raises obvious questions about oversight and accountability. There are countless examples of taxpayer money being spent on things that simply do not fall within the original scope of what the federal government was meant to do. But despite all of that expansion, the responsibility for national defense remains one of the most legitimate and essential functions of government. When we talk about peace through strength, we are really talking about fulfilling that constitutional responsibility in a serious and effective way. If the United States does not maintain the ability to defend itself and its allies, then the entire system that the founders created becomes vulnerable to external threats. The preservation of liberty requires security, and security requires the ability to deter those who wish to cause harm.

Todd Huff: That brings us back to the concept of strength. If you want the good guys to prevail in a dangerous world, the good guys must have the capability to defeat the bad guys. That is not a controversial statement in the real world, although it sometimes sounds controversial in modern political conversations. But the principle is actually very simple. You cannot stand up to a bully if you are not capable of defending yourself. If the bully knows you cannot fight back, the bullying will continue. In fact, it will usually escalate. The same principle applies on the global stage. Nations that are hostile to the United States or to our allies will test boundaries whenever they believe they can get away with it. If they see weakness, hesitation, or a lack of capability, they will push further. That is why maintaining a strong military is not about glorifying war. It is about preventing it. When potential aggressors understand that the United States has overwhelming capability and the willingness to use it if necessary, they are far less likely to start conflicts in the first place.

Todd Huff: The reality is that there are regimes and ideologies in the world that openly state their desire to destroy the United States and our allies. This is not speculation. This is not exaggeration. These statements are made publicly, and they are repeated frequently enough that we should take them seriously. You may have seen an example of this recently when White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had a tense exchange with Caitlin Collins in the briefing room. During that exchange, Leavitt made the point that the United States is dealing with regimes that literally want every person in that room dead. That is not rhetorical flourish. That is a description of the ideological hostility that exists within certain extremist movements and governments.

Todd Huff: I sometimes wonder whether people in the media or political class truly grasp the seriousness of that reality. When you hear chants of “Death to America” or “Death to Israel,” those are not abstract political slogans. Those are declarations of intent. When organizations and regimes openly call for the annihilation of a nation, as we have heard repeatedly in reference to Israel, that should be taken at face value. Yet there are still people who seem to believe that these kinds of threats can simply be talked away, negotiated away, or appeased through diplomatic gestures alone. That mindset ignores what history has already shown us. Consider the events of September 11 attacks. On that day, terrorists associated with al-Qaeda murdered nearly three thousand Americans. The victims were not soldiers on a battlefield. They were ordinary people going about their daily lives. There were pilots, office workers, parents, children, and countless others who had nothing to do with geopolitical conflicts. The attacks targeted civilians deliberately and indiscriminately, and the scale of the destruction demonstrated just how serious these ideological threats can become when they are carried out.

Todd Huff: When you read the personal stories of the people who died on that day, it reinforces the reality that these attacks were not directed at a government alone. They were directed at a way of life. They were directed at the idea of a free society. There were day care centers in the towers of the World Trade Center. There were businesses, restaurants, offices, and thousands of people simply trying to live their lives. That kind of indiscriminate violence is the logical conclusion of extremist ideologies that see anyone outside their belief system as an enemy to be eliminated. When we talk about regimes like the one that existed under Ali Khamenei, we are talking about leadership structures that have embraced a worldview fundamentally hostile to Western freedom and democratic governance. These are not theoretical disagreements over policy. These are ideological conflicts over the value of individual liberty, religious freedom, and the structure of society itself. When leaders promote the idea that people who do not submit to their religious or political system are legitimate targets, that becomes a direct threat to everyone outside that system. This is why the concept of peace through strength is so important. Strength is not about domination for its own sake. It is not about becoming the bully of the world. Strength is about preventing the kinds of tragedies that occur when hostile actors believe they can attack without consequence. When a nation has overwhelming defensive and offensive capabilities, potential aggressors must think carefully before taking hostile action. That hesitation—created by strength—is what helps preserve peace.

Todd Huff: None of this means that the United States should pursue war for the sake of war. That is not the argument. The argument is that preparedness and capability deter conflict. When adversaries understand that they cannot win, they are far less likely to start something in the first place. Military strength becomes a stabilizing force rather than a destabilizing one. It creates a situation where the cost of aggression is simply too high for rational actors to pursue. Of course, maintaining that level of capability requires investment. It requires training. It requires technology. It requires intelligence networks and strategic planning that can respond to threats anywhere in the world. That includes systems designed to protect against emerging threats such as cyber warfare, drone attacks, and even the possibility of an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, being used to disrupt critical infrastructure. In a world where technological capabilities continue to advance rapidly, maintaining a defensive edge is not optional. It is essential.

Todd Huff: At the same time, we should acknowledge that military spending and defense industries can create incentives of their own. Companies that manufacture weapons systems, advanced aircraft, or missile defense technologies obviously benefit when governments purchase those products. That creates the potential for financial incentives to influence political decisions. It is something that responsible citizens and lawmakers should always keep in mind when evaluating defense policy. But acknowledging those incentives does not change the underlying reality that threats exist. The existence of financial incentives in defense industries does not mean the threats themselves are imaginary. It simply means that we must approach national defense with both vigilance and accountability. We need to ensure that the military remains capable and effective while also maintaining oversight that prevents unnecessary expansion or misuse of resources.

Todd Huff: Ultimately, every nation has to decide where it falls on the spectrum between total pacifism and aggressive militarism. Complete pacifism—refusing to defend oneself under any circumstances—leaves a nation vulnerable to those who have no such moral constraints. On the other hand, reckless militarism can lead to unnecessary conflicts and instability. The challenge is finding the responsible middle ground that preserves security without abandoning the principles of liberty and restraint. In my view, that middle ground is exactly what the idea of peace through strength represents. It means building a military capable of overwhelming response if necessary, while maintaining the discipline to use that power carefully and only when justified. It means ensuring that enemies know we can defend ourselves and our allies, while also making it clear that we are not seeking conflict for its own sake. That balance is difficult to maintain, but it is essential if we want to preserve both security and freedom.

Todd Huff: Let me give you a snapshot of what has actually happened during this recent phase of operations involving Iran. We’re about a week into the campaign, and the results demonstrate exactly why global military capability matters. United States and allied forces have destroyed roughly thirty Iranian naval vessels. Thirty. Those ships have been sunk, disabled, or otherwise taken out of the fight. In addition to that, missile and drone attacks originating from Iran have reportedly been reduced by about ninety percent since the beginning of the operation. Think about that for a moment—ninety percent. That is a massive degradation in the enemy’s ability to strike back.

Todd Huff: Beyond that, nearly two thousand military targets have been struck across the Islamic Republic of Iran during the opening phase of the campaign. That includes missile launch sites, command centers, weapons storage facilities, and other pieces of infrastructure used by the regime to project power. At one point an Iranian drone carrier was struck and set on fire during the operation as well. All of this illustrates why capability matters. When you have the ability to move quickly, strike precisely, and sustain pressure on an adversary’s military assets, you fundamentally alter the balance of power in that conflict. This is why aircraft carrier groups matter. This is why overseas bases matter. This is why the United States maintains fleets, bombers, submarines, and intelligence networks positioned around the world. Critics often ask why we need that level of global presence. The answer is simple: it allows us to respond quickly when threats emerge. If it took weeks or months to mobilize forces and position them near a conflict zone, adversaries would exploit that delay. They would launch attacks knowing we couldn’t respond in time. Instead, because of our global posture, we can respond within hours. Carrier groups can move into position. Bombers can take off from the United States mainland and reach targets halfway around the world with aerial refueling. Submarines can operate quietly beneath the surface and strike targets with precision. Intelligence networks—some visible, many invisible—monitor developments in regions where threats may arise. All of this contributes to deterrence. It sends a clear message that aggression will not go unanswered.

Todd Huff: Think about the role of long-range bombers for a moment. When the United States struck Iranian targets previously, bombers reportedly launched from bases here in the United States, flew across the globe, conducted their mission, and then returned or landed at other allied bases. That kind of capability is extraordinary. It means that distance alone cannot protect hostile regimes from accountability. They cannot assume that oceans or geography will shield them from the consequences of their actions. Intelligence capabilities play an equally important role. Earlier I mentioned the reports that Israeli intelligence had gained access to traffic cameras inside Iran to monitor movements near sensitive locations. Whether that specific example is the full story or only part of it, it illustrates a broader point: modern intelligence operations combine technology, human sources, cyber capabilities, and satellite observation. These tools allow governments to track threats, identify vulnerabilities, and act at precisely the right moment. Deterrence is the ultimate goal. When our strength is overwhelming and our response capability is clear, enemies must think twice before taking hostile action. Weakness, on the other hand, invites aggression. I’ve said for years that American weakness is provocative. It encourages adversaries to test limits, to probe defenses, and to push boundaries. Strength does the opposite. Strength creates caution. Strength creates hesitation. Strength preserves stability.

Todd Huff: When we look back at events such as the attack in Benghazi or the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, we see examples of how perceived weakness can embolden adversaries. When the world believes that the United States lacks resolve or competence, hostile actors are more likely to take risks. They interpret weakness as opportunity. That’s why maintaining credibility—militarily and politically—is so important. Now, that doesn’t mean the United States should attempt to micromanage every political development around the world. In fact, one of the biggest debates taking place right now concerns what role the United States should play in the aftermath of leadership changes in Iran. Reports suggest that former President Donald Trump has argued that the United States should be involved in selecting or influencing the next leader of Iran following the death of Ali Khamenei.

Todd Huff: This raises difficult questions. On one hand, the United States has a vested interest in ensuring that hostile regimes do not simply replace one extremist leader with another. On the other hand, history shows that externally imposed leadership changes can create long-term instability. The phrase “regime change” became very familiar during the early 2000s, and many Americans remain skeptical about repeating those kinds of interventions. So what are the options? One possibility is that the Iranian people themselves rise up and reshape their government. That would likely produce the most legitimate and stable outcome because it would reflect the will of the population rather than the preferences of outside powers. Another option is that the United States and its allies exert some influence behind the scenes to encourage the emergence of leaders who are less hostile to the West.

Todd Huff: But there are risks with every approach. If the United States appears to be selecting Iran’s leadership directly, it could fuel accusations that the country has become a puppet state. That perception could generate backlash both inside Iran and across the region. At the same time, doing nothing carries its own risk: the possibility that another radical figure could rise to power and continue the same aggressive policies. These are the kinds of decisions that policymakers must wrestle with in real time. There are no simple answers. The key is finding the balance between protecting American interests and respecting the sovereignty of other nations. That balance isn’t always easy to achieve, but it’s necessary if we want to maintain credibility and stability in international affairs. Before we wrap up, let me mention a couple of our sponsors who help make The Todd Huff Show possible.

Todd Huff: If you’ve been hearing headlines about kratom and wondering what’s real and what isn’t, it’s important to understand that not all products are the same. A lot of what gets attention in the news involves synthetic substances that aren’t actually authentic kratom at all. That’s why I recommend Christopher's Organic Botanicals. They’re a family-run company that works directly with farmers in Indonesia. Every batch is lab tested for purity—no chemicals, no fillers, no shortcuts. If you’re interested in trying it, you can start with their kratom starter pack and use coupon code Todd Huff for ten percent off your first order.

Todd Huff: I also want to remind you about Full Suite Wealth. You’ve worked hard, you’ve made smart choices, and now it’s about making sure that effort counts not just today but for the future. Full Suite Wealth helps forward-thinking individuals develop coordinated plans for wealth, legacy, and legal strategy. They look at the big picture—private equity, private credit, options strategies—and help ensure your success benefits the people you care about most. And if you’re concerned about whether your investments align with your values, take a look at 4:8 Financial. They specialize in biblically responsible investing, screening out companies that conflict with your faith and values. Their process allows you to evaluate your current portfolio and see whether your money is supporting the principles you believe in. Finally, if you want to keep up with everything we discuss on the program, make sure you join the Inner Circle. It’s completely free. You can sign up by texting the word TRUTH to 317-785-1030. The Inner Circle includes additional content, links to the Stack of Stuff, and updates on stories we don’t always have time to cover during the show. That’s all the time we have today, my friends. Have a great weekend. SDG.