The Trump administration’s foreign policy decisions have thrust the United States into another armed conflict with a hostile foreign nation that happens to have significant amounts of oil. However, where the operation in Venezuela took less than three hours, the current war on Iran is rapidly turning into a long-term military engagement, with no clear war aims and no evident win condition for the United States despite rising death tolls and serious infrastructure damage not only for Iran but also for the United States, NATO allies, and other Middle Eastern nations. Let’s briefly discuss the what, the why, and the future of the Iran war.

Operation Epic Fury

The attacks against Iran, known by the United States as Operation Epic Fury and by Israel as Operation Roaring Lion, began with a quite literal bang. A massive surprise wave of airstrikes, launched by both the United States and Israel, targeted military and government sites across Iran. This wave included a series of decapitation strikes aimed at assassinating key Iranian leaders, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Other strikes hit civilian infrastructure, including one Tomahawk missile that landed in a girls’ primary school, killing 170 civilians.

The U.S. Navy has also begun to deploy submarines into anti-ship warfare. The Iranian warship IRIS Dena was struck by a torpedo in international waters off the coast of Sri Lanka, an attack that Secretary of Defense Hegseth rapidly announced was the result of an American submarine. Several sources have reported that the Dena was returning from a multinational naval drill organized by India and was not armed for war, though this does not mean that sinking it constituted a war crime. As a hostile nation’s ship in international waters, the Dena was a legitimate military target. It was just one of many Iranian ships destroyed early in the war, with the U.S. reporting that at least 30 Iranian ships had been sunk over the first week of the conflict.

Iranian retaliation was swift, aggressive and wide-ranging. Within the first 24 hours, Iranian missiles had hit seven countries across the Middle East, largely targeting U.S. military bases but also hitting major civilian infrastructure. Dubai International Airport (hub of Emirates and the busiest airport on the planet in terms of international passengers) and the UAE’s largest port and oil export facility were targeted by Iranian drone attacks. 

While American losses have been limited in comparison to those suffered by Iran, the U.S. military has not gone without losses. Time reported that 13 servicemembers from the American military had been killed in action during the conflict and approximately 200 have been injured. Three American F-15s have been shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses in a friendly fire incident, and there are also reports that Iranian anti-air fire has damaged an American F-35. If true, this would be the first known instance of an F-35 fighter jet being damaged by enemy fire. This last report is, however, poorly substantiated, so it’s unclear if Iranian attacks caused that damage.

Uncertain objectives

While the events of the war have been comparatively well documented, the objectives of the conflict are uncertain. The U.S. Central Command describes Operation Epic Fury as intending to “dismantle the Iranian regime’s security apparatus, prioritizing locations that pose an imminent threat.” The Trump administration’s press releases have consistently emphasized that the operation is aimed at destroying Iran’s capacity to wage war and its ability to build a nuclear bomb. It is worth noting that the U.S. had previously hit several Iranian nuclear sites during a targeted bombing campaign in June 2015, after which administration officials claimed that Iran’s nuclear program had been set back by at least a year. 

The administration’s claims about Operation Epic Fury have been consistent, but President Trump’s statements about the war indicate a far wider range of aims. After the opening strikes, Trump announced that the Iranian people had been given an opportunity to revolt and take down their regime. Trump has also claimed that the war will continue until the U.S. manages to achieve peace in the Middle East, though both this claim and his emphasis on regime change have been walked back steadily as the war has dragged on. Where Trump has stopped advocating for regime change in Iran and seems to acknowledge that a public uprising is unlikely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to advocate revolution, and this divide in aims may create a rift between the allies in the coming weeks.

Out with Khamenei, in with… Khamenei?

If the objective of the joint American/Israeli campaign was regime change, its effectiveness has been limited despite promising early signs. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, was killed in the opening minutes by an Israeli missile strike, with CIA intel leading Israeli missile strikes directly to Khamenei’s location. Numerous key figures in the Iranian government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard were also killed in the first round of strikes, with Israeli intelligence reporting the deaths of seven key officials, including one of the Ayatollah’s key advisors.

While Ali Khamenei may be dead, the Iranian government remains firmly under control of the same Islamic regime as before. The Ayatollah’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has been selected to replace his father as the head of the Iranian state. There is some evidence that the senior Khamenei was uncertain about giving power to his son, but in his absence, Mojtaba was the clear choice of leader, and with much of his family dead from American and Israeli bombing campaigns, many predict him to be a strict hardliner on the current war, unlikely to bow to international pressure.

The junior Khamenei, however, has recently been difficult to find. The Wall Street Journal reports that Khamenei has not been heard from or seen since his selection as supreme leader, with press releases read by journalists and AI-generated social media profile photos. It’s unclear why exactly Mojtaba Khamenei has been so reclusive, though Trump administration leaders believe that he may have been wounded, or possibly even killed, in the airstrike campaign.

The Strait of Hormuz and oil prices

While this war may have begun as a decapitation effort to promote regime change, the main focus is now the Strait of Hormuz. This strait, with Iran to its north and the UAE and Oman to its south, is a vital hub of global trade, with nearly 150 ships sailing through it each day prior to the current conflict. The BBC has reported that 20 ships have been attacked off the Iranian coast since the start of the war, while the average daily number of ships passing through the strait has dropped from 150 to under 6. Oil prices have also skyrocketed to over $100, reaching prices not seen since 2022 during the early stages of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Re-opening the strait has now become a significant aim of the American war effort, with Trump pledging to use American naval ships to escort tankers through the strait. He has also called on American allies to send their own ships to the strait, though no concrete efforts have been made by other nations so far.

Prospects for peace

With the son of the assassinated Supreme Leader now in command of Iran, and with both Israel and the United States seemingly unwilling to commit to thorough negotiations, the odds of a peace deal coming to fruition soon are not high. However, in the last few days Trump appears to have shifted his view and become more tolerant of a potential peace deal. During a press conference on Mar. 24, he mentioned that the Iranians had given “a very big present” that had helped move him towards accepting a potential peace deal.

Despite this move, the two sides are still no closer to an actual deal. The American peace plan reportedly requires Iran to give up all its nuclear capabilities (both for civilian-grade power plants and nuclear weapons) and limit its ballistic missile program, while Iran demanded that the United States recognize its authority over the Strait of Hormuz and pay reparations for damages inflicted in the war. Israel, meanwhile, continues to push for extending the war. Israeli officials have said that Israel will need several more weeks to achieve their primary war aims, and that there are further military and governmental targets within Iran that they would like to eliminate. 

With the inconsistency of President Trump’s own claims about the war, vacillating between sending additional forces to the region and declaring the war to be effectively over, it is hard to know exactly where the future leads. Productive talks appear unlikely, especially as Iran states that they have no intention to negotiate at this point and do not trust the American side to negotiate authentically. Peace, at this point, will most likely involve both parties making some concessions; the real challenge will be forcing American, Israeli, and Iranian leadership to accept concessions.

On Jan. 3, 2026, the United States launched a devastating military strike against Venezuela, destroying key military infrastructure and capturing the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, along with his wife Cilia Flores. Maduro was brought to the United States, where he was arraigned on federal charges of narco-terrorism and mass scale corruption, charges first levied in 2020. With nearly two months having elapsed and the current state of Venezuela having largely fallen out of the news cycle, it’s worth looking back at the Venezuela story and seeing how things have progressed.

Maduro’s court case

The first few days after Maduro’s capture were a flurry of court activity, with his official arraignment taking place on January 5^th, less than three days after his capture. The Department of Justice alleges that Maduro has engaged in a cocaine-trafficking conspiracy, including working with several cartels that the Trump administration designated as foreign terrorist organizations. The charges also include weapons-related charges around Maduro’s alleged use of illicitly obtained weaponry. The indictment also charged four other members of the Venezuelan government, none of whom were apprehended during the strike on Jan. 3.

Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty on all counts, with Maduro claiming that he is “a decent man” who is still the Venezuelan president (a position that the Venezuelan government has not yet revoked) and that he is a “prisoner of war.” Lawyers for the couple acknowledged that Maduro and Flores were in good spirits given the circumstances and that there was a long way to go in the case.

However, now that legal proceedings are underway, progress on the case has slowed. After their initial arraignment, their next hearing is set for March 17^th, and neither Maduro nor his wife has tried to set bail. The most noteworthy development in recent weeks is that Argentina has requested Maduro’s extradition, with Argentinian authorities hoping to try Maduro on charges of crimes against humanity and human rights violations. While Argentina and the US have an extradition treaty, it’s unlikely that an extradition will happen, especially with Maduro already awaiting a trial in the United States.

Venezuela’s political developments

With Maduro de facto removed from power, leadership in Venezuela has passed to his second-in-command Delcy Rodríguez, who was sworn in as acting president on Jan. 5. The Venezuelan government remains under the control of Maduro’s United Socialist Party, and notable opposition leaders, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Marina Corina Machado, remain either in exile or out of power despite attempts to curry favor with the Trump administration.

On the American side, the operation to remove Maduro was spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio has long desired the removal of several left-wing authoritarian regimes from Latin America, including that of Maduro. Since Maduro’s removal, Rubio has overseen building American relations with Rodríguez and steering the Venezuelan government towards friendlier relations with America and American business interests. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has likewise played a key role in developing a plan around Venezuela’s oil industry, attempting to coordinate new investment from major firms such as Chevron and ExxonMobil.

Maduro’s removal has not changed much about the leadership of Venezuela, but new political pressures from the United States have produced some movement in Venezuelan policy, including a new amnesty law for political prisoners. Pushed through by Rodríguez, the amnesty law would release prisoners jailed for political crimes, though not those imprisoned on charges of homicide, corruption or drug offenses. The President of Venezuela’s National Assembly confirmed that over fifteen hundred applications for amnesty have been received under the new law, while critics of the law argue that the exceptions for certain offenses, particularly corruption, permit the Venezuelan state to keep key opposition figures jailed.

Following the Oil Money

In the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 3 raid, the fate of Venezuela’s massive oil reserves became a key question. Trump rapidly declared that the United States would be seizing Venezuelan oil reserves, with Venezuela turning over 50 million barrels of oil to the US. Trump asserted on a Truth Social post that he would control any proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil, and that he would use it to “benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.” 

According to numerous reports, the Trump administration sent half a billion dollars in proceeds from oil sales into a Qatari bank account controlled by the US government. This proposal generated significant backlash, and the administration has since pivoted. Secretary Wright announced at a press conference on Feb. 13 that the money from the Venezuelan oil sales will now be sent to a newly formed account at the U.S. Treasury. Wright, speaking from Venezuela at a joint conference with interim president Rodríguez, further announced that sales of Venezuelan oil had exceeded $1 billion since Maduro’s abduction, and that an additional $5 billion of sales are expected in the coming months.Democrats and outside observers have been sharply critical of the handling of both Venezuelan oil reserves and the proceeds from their sale. Democratic lawmakers have pressured the Trump administration to provide more information on how oil proceeds, particularly those that have been routed through Qatar, have been used. The administration’s own handling of the funds has been largely unexplained, and this lack of transparency is a significant worry for the future both of Venezuela and of trust in the US government.

What is the Heritage Foundation? 

The Heritage Foundation is a powerful conservative think tank founded in 1973 that writes ready-made policy blueprints for Republican lawmakers and presidents. It promotes Christian conservative social values and aggressive executive power. Though it is a private organization, it has outsized influence in shaping federal policy—most recently as the architect of Project 2025. Its influence during the second Trump presidency has been especially direct; an analysis by DeSmog found that more than 50 high-level Trump administration officials had links to the organization. 

What is Project 2025? 

Project 2025 is a sweeping conservative policy blueprint created by the Heritage Foundation to prepare for a Republican presidency after the 2024 presidential election. The project calls for limiting abortion access, rolling back LGBTQ+ protections, eliminating diversity and equity programs, weakening the Department of Education, and redefining federal policy around a traditional, heterosexual model of family and marriage.

Since Trump took office, significant portions of this agenda have been implemented; in fact, most estimates say more than 50% of the project has been completed. Initiatives proposed by Project 2025 include:

• Issuing a series of executive orders dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies
• Instructing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to scale back investigations into race- and sex-based discrimination, weakening federal enforcement of civil rights protections
• Terminating tens of thousands of federal employees, significantly reducing the size and capacity of the federal workforce
• Using law enforcement agencies to aggressively target immigrant communities, expanding surveillance, detention, and deportation efforts
• Barring Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds, restricting access to reproductive healthcare for low-income individuals
• Eliminating more than $800 million in federal funding dedicated to research on LGBTQ+ health, undermining efforts to understand and address disparities within the community

What Comes Next?

While much attention has focused on how the Trump administration implemented substantial portions of Project 2025, those actions now function primarily as context. The more pressing issue is what comes next.

In Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years, published by The Heritage Foundation argues that the restoration of the traditional heterosexual family is essential to national renewal. Framed as a pro-family policy blueprint, the report proposes sweeping reforms to welfare, tax policy, family law, and cultural institutions. The most distressing element of the report is its willingness to restructure social welfare around a single normative vision of marriage.

A New (Old) Understanding of Family

The report situates family support as central to national survival, claiming, “The family is the foundation of civilization, and marriage — the committed union of one man and one woman — is its cornerstone.” By positioning one family model as morally and politically superior, these proposals expand government influence into private life and legitimize intrusive interventions into intimate decisions.

The Heritage Foundation advances a deeply regressive vision of American life by arguing that marriage (not personal growth, education, or professional achievement) should be the primary marker of adult success. The report laments that modern culture encourages young people to delay marriage in favor of career development, complaining that

“For most previous generations, marriage was the foundation of adulthood. In contrast, today’s cultural narrative teaches young people to delay marriage and focus on career and personal achievements first. Many now consider marriage a capstone to adult life, something only to be accomplished once career and other personal goals have been achieved.”

What the report frames as cultural decline is, in reality, the expansion of opportunity, particularly for women, who now have the ability to pursue education and financial independence before entering marriage. By portraying career ambition and self-development as threats to social order, the report romanticizes a past in which economic dependence and rigid gender roles were the norm.

The document goes further, openly villainizing online dating, pornography, sexual freedom, abortion, and no-fault divorce as drivers of family breakdown. It blames the social transformations of the 1960s, arguing that 

“The disruptions to American family life caused by bad public policy in the 1960s were exacerbated by cultural upheavals that radically changed social norms around sex, sexuality, marriage, children, and gender roles. Second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution promoted an individualistic, child-free, marriage-free, sexual ‘liberation’…”

In this telling, feminism and expanded sexual autonomy are not historic advancements in civil rights but catastrophic mistakes. The report treats women’s independence, reproductive choice, and the ability to leave unhappy marriages as social decline rather than progress. By condemning no-fault divorce and abortion alongside “casual sex,” it reveals a broader desire to reinstate moral and legal pressures that would make exiting marriage or avoiding it altogether more difficult.

Perhaps most telling is the report’s hostility toward higher education. It claims that college represents “extended adolescence” and argues that “[m]ore education correlates with later marriage, fewer children.” Rather than acknowledging that economic instability, student debt, and labor market changes shape young adults’ timelines, the report implies that education itself is the problem. In effect, it frames intellectual development and economic mobility as obstacles to the “natural” order of early marriage and childbearing. The logic is clear: independence delays marriage, and delayed marriage is treated as a national crisis.

Welfare and Economic Reform

The report also calls for eliminating marriage penalties in state welfare, arguing that current programs discourage marriage by financially disadvantaging married couples compared with single parents. As the report states:

“All children conceived deserve to be born to their mothers and fathers in a committed marriage who will love, guide, and protect them throughout their lives. Therefore, at a minimum, policies should not discourage or penalize marriage. Policy should instead affirmatively support and privilege marriage as directly and explicitly as possible.”

While framed as a means to promote social and economic stability, this approach distorts the reality of poverty: it reduces support for single parents (disproportionately low-income women) and assumes that marital status is the primary driver of economic insecurity, oversimplifying the systemic issues that contribute to financial hardship. 

Similarly, the report advocates reforming alimony and spousal support by capping payments to the length of the marriage and favoring lump-sum settlements. Though presented as fairness reform, this policy would disproportionately harm stay-at-home spouses, often women, who sacrificed careers to provide caregiving and often face difficulty in re-entering the workforce.

The report also promotes support for stay-at-home parenting through Home Childcare Equalization (HCE) credits, intended to encourage one parent to remain at home. This policy reinforces traditional gender roles and limits flexibility for modern work-family arrangements, potentially pressuring parents into unpaid caregiving to qualify for benefits. Beyond economic incentives, the report seeks to influence reproductive behavior, emphasizing policies that encourage childbearing within marriage and framing declining birth rates as a national problem. As the report asks, “What happens to a nation when its citizens largely stop having children?… These questions are not theoretical,” illustrating its view of fertility as a matter of national urgency.

Taken together, the report constructs a narrative in which sexual freedom, feminism, reproductive rights, educational attainment, and personal autonomy are to blame for social decline. It does not merely advocate for supporting families—it seeks to discipline modern life back into a narrow, heteronormative and marriage-centered model. What it labels “saving America” is, in practice, an attempt to roll back decades of expanded freedom, particularly for women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Rather than addressing structural economic inequality, stagnant wages, childcare costs, or healthcare access, the report chooses to scapegoat cultural progress and personal autonomy. Its vision of restoration depends not on expanding opportunity, but on constraining it.

Why the New Phase Feels Different

The earlier implementation of Project 2025 policies demonstrated the feasibility of large-scale administrative shifts via executive action. That track record amplifies concern about the Heritage Foundation’s new proposals. The central shift is not merely about abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, or DEI programs individually. It is about whether the federal government adopts a singular, officially endorsed definition of family and social order and structures funding, civil rights enforcement and educational policy around that definition.

The announcement comes over a year after the College’s declaration of exigency and a previous round of layoffs.

Several of Jewell’s former departments were suffering from a faculty crunch even before this most recent downsizing. (While departments have been formally replaced with academic divisions, courses—and faculty—are still listed by department.) Five of Jewell’s departments—Business, Engineering, Mathematics, Philosophy, and Psychology—only have one full-time faculty member. Jewell intends to accommodate this shortage by adding to these departments: at the time of publication, the College is hiring assistant professors in Education, Engineering, and Psychology. Other changes include merging the Philosophy department into Political Science.

According to multiple sources, the College could not find space in budget plans to make these hires after student enrollment was lower than expected in the 2025-26 academic year.

Separately, the Board of Trustees voted to permanently halt student enrollment into the Oxbridge program, the only honors program remaining at Jewell. The College paused enrollment for the 2025-26 academic year after the College’s declaration of exigency. Current students in the program would be permitted to graduate with their majors. The College has reportedly expressed interest in opening another honors program built on the foundation of the Pryor Leadership program.

These changes suggest that the College is changing its program offerings by emphasizing Business and other pre-professional programs (in line with interim President Van Horn’s guidance).

If you are a student affected by program changes at Jewell and wish to talk to the Hilltop Monitor about changes in your program, you can contact us here.

This story is developing.