As I process the Republicans’ massive losses in last week’s midterm elections, I’m thinking about Winston Churchill. Now, you might say, why Churchill? He was the Prime Minister of Great Britain 80 years ago. How is he relevant to the U.S. midterms in 2026? Consider this.

In July 1945, just two months after the surrender of Nazi Germany, Churchill was voted out of office. He had just spent the previous five years as Prime Minister, leading Britain through the absolute storm of World War II. In those early days before the U.S. joined the war, he was a man alone, standing against Hitler during Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, some of the darkest moments in British history, when it seemed like every Englishman might soon be speaking German.

Churchill led Britain through that, and alongside the United States, led the Allies to ultimate victory over Hitler’s hordes. His reward was to be immediately voted out of office. His conservative party lost the 1945 election in a landslide.

Which brings me to the midterms.

I believe President Trump made a Churchill-like decision in confronting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He saw the gathering storm. He received the intelligence that Iran’s fanatical death cult of modern-day Nazis was on the verge of a nuclear bomb, and he acted.

He knew there were serious political risks in an election year, but he did the right thing anyway. He put the safety and security of the American people over his electoral fortunes. His reward? A blue tsunami in the midterms.

But I believe, just as history now judges Winston Churchill very kindly for his courageous leadership, it will do the same one day for President Trump, for stopping a group of Islamic jihadist fanatics from acquiring the world’s deadliest weapons.

“Historically, this will be a very good decision,” the President said in an interview with 60 Minutes. “Is it a good decision for today and tomorrow? Maybe not. But, you know, I have to go with what’s right for our country. If they had a nuclear weapon during my term, I would be excoriated, far worse than what’s happened. I’ve stopped them from having a nuclear weapon. That’s a big thing.”

President Trump’s decision to attack Iran was not a mistake—far from it. The mistake was to not finish the job back in April. It would have been seen as a major victory heading into the midterms, and gas prices would have leveled off months ago. Instead, the administration got sucked into endless negotiations with the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism.

They want a deal. They don’t want a deal. They’re threatening to assassinate the president. The months dragged on and on, and the clock kept ticking towards the midterms.

There can never be any credible deal with an apocalyptic regime that is devoted to destroying the United States and thinks it can usher in the Islamic version of the end times. That’s really why they want the bomb. If that wasn’t clear to everyone before, it certainly should be now.

“The president would always prefer to solve this and every problem diplomatically,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on Sunday. “Sometimes that’s not possible, unfortunately, but if there’s a chance to do it, we’ll explore it. Right now, it hasn’t been very productive because the Iranian demands are not just unacceptable, but in some cases, outrageous, ridiculous, and really not realistic.”

Surprise, surprise.

Secretary Rubio also defended the president’s decision to attack Iran.

“The President of the United States identified a very real threat to this country that’s existed for a very long period of time, and he addressed it,” Secretary Rubio told reporters. “And he addressed it even though, oftentimes, the right thing to do for the country—confronting difficult challenges for the security of our country—doing it isn’t necessarily popular but necessary.”

“There used to be bipartisan acknowledgment that a nuclear Iran would be completely unacceptable and dangerous for the United States—not just Israel, not just the Middle East—the whole world and the United States,” he stressed. “So I think the President took on something that other presidents have failed to do. Sometimes when you do the right thing, popular or not, it’s the right thing to do. Presidents are elected to do the hard things—sometimes difficult things, but necessary things.”

Amen. For everyone saying that the president should not have struck Iran, ask yourself this: would you feel comfortable living with a nuclear-armed Iran? It’s real simple.

During this conflict, Iran has shown that it has long-range missiles capable of hitting London, Paris, and Berlin. It’s been working for years on intercontinental ballistic missiles that would enable it to hit—you guessed it—the United States. If Trump did not act, those missiles would have eventually been nuclear-tipped.

Should we have just stood by and allowed a regime that’s practically copyrighted the phrase, “death to America,” to acquire the doomsday weapons that could make that slogan a reality?

This is not the Cold War, when there was a policy of mutually assured destruction. The Soviets didn’t want to die, and we didn’t want to die, so no one pulled the nuclear trigger. Iran’s Islamic fanatics are another story entirely. They welcome death. Good luck trying to contain an Iranian bomb because they’re just crazy enough to use it.

Trump had to act. If you think your gas prices are high now, imagine if Iran had successfully tested a nuclear device this year and sparked a Middle East arms race. Turkey, Egypt, the Saudis, everyone in the world’s most chaotic and volatile region would have been racing towards the bomb, and Iran would have a nuclear umbrella over the Strait of Hormuz. Pain at the pump would have only been the beginning.

President Trump still has time to finish the job in Iran, and the next two months are crucial before Democrats take control of Congress in January. Pray for wisdom and discernment for President Trump and his team as they navigate all this in the days to come. Even some of Trump’s fellow Republicans are right now throwing him under the bus over Iran, but I do believe that history will vindicate his decision.

Erick Stakelbeck is an author, analyst, and host of “The Watchman” newscast and “Stakelbeck Tonight.” Stakelbeck also serves as the Director of Christians United for Israel’s CUFI Watchman Project.