A Washington Examiner op-ed published Sunday argues that Iran's ruling clerics are prepared to burn the nation down to keep power, leaving ninety million citizens as hostages waiting for President Donald Trump to finish the job.
The piece, headlined "Iran's final battle: Ninety million hostages are waiting for @realDonaldTrump to finish the job," was promoted by the Examiner's official account, @dcexaminer, and quickly became a rallying point for conservatives who view the Islamic Republic as a dying regime clinging to power through repression.
The op-ed's central claim is that Iran's leadership is a "ruling cult" ready to sacrifice the country rather than relinquish control, and that the Iranian people — described as ninety million captives — are waiting for American action to help them reclaim their homeland. That claim has not been independently confirmed by Next News Network.
Within hours of the op-ed's publication, the argument moved from the opinion pages into a broader conversation online, with accounts across the conservative ecosystem amplifying the message and pressing the case for a harder line against Tehran.
The phrasing of the headline itself — addressing Trump directly by his social media handle — reflects a deliberate appeal to the former president's well-documented willingness to engage with foreign adversaries and his stated preference for maximum pressure campaigns. During his first term, Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran, and ordered the strike that killed Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani. Supporters of that approach argue it weakened the regime; critics contend it failed to produce the collapse some predicted.
The op-ed's publication comes amid renewed attention to Iran's internal stability. The country has experienced repeated waves of protest in recent years, including the 2022 demonstrations that followed the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody. Those protests were met with a brutal crackdown, and estimates of casualties vary widely. The regime has also faced economic turmoil driven in part by sanctions, currency collapse, and chronic mismanagement.
Yet the claim that ninety million Iranians are uniformly waiting for American intervention is a characterization, not a verified fact. Iran's population is diverse in its politics, and while opposition to the clerical regime is well documented, the degree to which the public would welcome foreign involvement is a matter of debate among analysts.
The op-ed's framing — that Iran faces a "final battle" — suggests a moment of maximal opportunity for the Trump administration to press its advantage. Whether such a moment exists, and what "finishing the job" would entail, remains unclear. The piece does not specify a policy prescription beyond the implicit call for decisive action.
Conservative commentators have seized on the language. The notion of ninety million hostages invokes a moral clarity that resonates with a base that has grown weary of prolonged conflicts but remains hawkish on Iran. It positions the Iranian people not as adversaries but as captives — a distinction that allows for support of regime change without the baggage of occupation.
The op-ed also reflects a broader frustration with the Biden administration's Iran policy, which conservatives argue has been marked by appeasement and a failed return to the nuclear deal. Trump has repeatedly promised a return to maximum pressure if reelected, and his allies have signaled that Iran would be a top priority in a second term.
The @dcexaminer account's promotion of the piece is notable given the Examiner's role as a platform for conservative opinion. The headline's direct address to Trump — using his handle — is a stylistic choice that blurs the line between opinion journalism and political messaging, but it is consistent with the outlet's editorial stance.
What the op-ed does not do is provide a roadmap. It does not say what "finishing the job" looks like, whether through military strikes, covert action, or simply continued sanctions. It does not address the risks of escalation or the potential for unintended consequences. It offers a diagnosis — a regime holding its people hostage — and a vague prescription — Trump should act.
That vagueness may be part of its appeal. It allows readers to project their own preferred policy onto the call to action. For some, it means bombing nuclear sites. For others, it means funding opposition groups. For still others, it simply means not negotiating with Tehran.
The op-ed's publication also raises questions about the role of public opinion in shaping Iran policy. If ninety million Iranians are indeed waiting for Trump, as the headline claims, then the moral case for intervention is strengthened. But if the reality is more complicated — as most experts suggest — then the op-ed risks selling a simplistic narrative that could lead to poor policy choices.
Next News Network could not independently verify the claim that Iran's leadership is a "ruling cult" or that ninety million citizens are uniformly waiting for Trump to act.
The story has spread beyond the Examiner's pages. The headline has been shared by accounts across X, with users adding their own commentary and urging Trump to take note. The phrasing has become a shorthand for a particular worldview: that Iran is on the brink, that its people are ready to rise, and that only American leadership can tip the balance.
Whether that worldview is accurate will be tested in the months ahead. For now, the op-ed has done what it set out to do: it has framed the debate, energized a constituency, and put the question of Iran squarely back in the conversation.
Our Take
The Washington Examiner's op-ed is right about one thing: the Iranian regime is a brutal theocracy that has spent four decades terrorizing its own people and exporting violence across the Middle East. The mullahs have blood on their hands, and the Iranian people have suffered greatly under their rule.
But calling ninety million Iranians "hostages" waiting for Trump to "finish the job" is a dangerous oversimplification. It treats a complex society as a monolith and implies that foreign intervention is the only solution. The Iranian people have shown remarkable courage in standing up to the regime, but they have also shown that they want self-determination, not salvation from abroad.
President Trump's maximum pressure campaign was the right approach, and it weakened the regime economically and strategically. But "finishing the job" requires more than a slogan. It requires a clear strategy that supports the Iranian people without owning their revolution, that isolates the regime without punishing the populace, and that avoids the quagmire of another Middle Eastern war.
The op-ed's instinct is correct: the regime is vulnerable, and the window for change may be open. But the path forward must be paved with realism, not romanticism. The Iranian people are not waiting for Trump to save them. They are waiting for the world to stop enabling their oppressors. That is a different call to action — and a harder one.
