Lawler and Lyakhov Discuss Israel’s Attack on Iran

As tensions between Israel and Iran reach a new boiling point, one of the youngest voices in American foreign policy—Gregory Lyakhov—spoke directly with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) about Israel’s recent preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the broader implications for regional and global security.

The strike, which Israel described as a necessary and targeted action, comes after months of rising threats and covert uranium enrichment by the Iranian regime. In response, Iran launched a series of retaliatory missile attacks, some of which were intercepted while others reached Israeli territory. The world now watches as a fragile situation threatens to spiral into a larger conflict.

Rep. Lawler, a key Republican voice on foreign affairs, did not sweeten words in his conversation with Lyakhov. “You have to support Israel’s right to defend itself,” he said. “And you have to recognize the threat that Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Houthis and other Iranian proxies pose—not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the region more broadly.”

Lawler’s warning underscores what many experts have been saying for years: Iran’s foreign policy is not just regional, it is revolutionary. The Islamic Republic continues to fund and arm terror groups across the Middle East while moving aggressively toward nuclear weapons capability. According to Lawler, this is not about diplomacy gone wrong. It’s about a regime with no intention of coexistence. “They have no desire to live peacefully with Israel,” he said. “They want to destroy Israel.”

Lyakhov,  the youngest nationally syndicated columnist known for his focus on Middle East policy, has spent the past year interviewing dissidents, former IDF soldiers, and regional experts. The message has been consistent: Iran’s nuclear program is not a tool for energy—it is a tool for leverage, and eventually, for war.

The conversation between Lawler and Lyakhov also touched on the broader dynamics of the region. Syria, often overlooked in major headlines, may be on the verge of a political turning point.

“We are trying to move forward and create an opportunity where we can actually bring about change in Syria, which long term is better for Israel and everyone in the Middle East,” Lawler said.

When asked whether Syria’s new leadership might normalize relations with Israel, Lawler was surprisingly optimistic. “I do,” he answered. “I think there’s an opportunity. And frankly, that wouldn’t be the case had Netanyahu listened to Biden and Blinken and Sullivan and acquiesced to their demands.”

This was a pointed criticism of the Biden administration’s handling of Israel’s security needs. Lawler emphasized that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to act independently has preserved strategic options for Israel that would have otherwise been sacrificed under American pressure.

One of the most revealing parts of their exchange came when Lyakhov asked about Qatar—a Gulf state that has drawn attention recently after gifting a private jet to former President Donald Trump. While the media focused heavily on the optics of the gift, Lawler was more interested in Qatar’s long-standing role in U.S. politics and Middle Eastern diplomacy.

“From my vantage point, obviously you always want to avoid any appearance of impropriety,” Lawler noted. “Qatar has been helpful in many respects. In other areas, I have serious questions about how they’ve conducted themselves.”

For years, Qatar has funded American universities, hosted U.S. military assets, and simultaneously maintained ties with groups like Hamas. Lawler made it clear that while the United States benefits from certain elements of cooperation with Qatar, it must approach the relationship with eyes open and values intact.

In a time of growing uncertainty, this discussion served as a reminder that leadership requires clarity. Israel’s preemptive strike was not an act of aggression—it was a last resort after years of warnings, diplomacy, and rising threats.

Rep. Lawler’s perspective, sharpened by a commitment to democratic allies, cut through the noise. Iran’s intentions are not ambiguous. They are written into doctrine, broadcast in speeches, and demonstrated in action. As Lyakhov’s coverage has repeatedly shown, ignoring those intentions puts every free society at risk.

The message from this conversation is one the world cannot afford to forget: peace is not preserved by pretending threats don’t exist. It is preserved by standing with allies, confronting enemies, and refusing to reward regimes that seek to destroy everything the free world stands for.