I will post tomorrow about the threat Iran poses to Israel and why Israel is right to act against Iran. What I want to explain now is why Trump’s actions taken on Saturday are not analogous to Bush’s actions in Iraq and why Trump’s actions are not unconstitutional (neither were Bush’s, for the record). I have been accused of being a neocon. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I would like to see regime change in Iran, I do not want to see the United States invade Iran. Given Trump’s biography, I don’t think he wants that, either. His bellicosity is strategic. At least I hope so. As Dave Brat said the other day, if we become embroiled in a war with Iran, the war becomes Trump’s agenda and that derails the things we elected him to do.
Democrat reaction to Trump’s actions is not principled but rather entirely partisan—so partisan that they will take the side of a Islamofascist state rather than side with the President (John Fetterman excepted). What a turn Democrats have taken. Trump dispossesses them of the capacity to reason. Democratic presidents since the 1979 Islamic Revolution have maintained a firm stance that Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons. The consistent message has been that a regime so openly hostile to the West, so deeply entangled in regional conflicts, cannot be trusted with nuclear capability. One would have to be a fool to believe otherwise.
As I noted in recent essays on my platform, the threat Iran poses to the region and the world greatly accelerated during the Obama and Biden presidencies. Despite Obama and Biden’s public pronouncements, they enabled Iran to advance its nuclear capability. Trump entered the White House on January 20 knowing this fact: Iran’s uranium enrichment program had reached levels as high as 60 percent purity, placing it just a step away from the 90 percent threshold required for weapons-grade material. While Tehran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, enrichment at this level serves no civilian purpose. This signals technical readiness to quickly break out to a bomb if the decision is made.
This assessment is not “manufactured” CIA or Israeli intelligence. The assessment comes from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog. The IAEA has conducted regular inspections and confirms that Iran began enriching uranium to 60 percent purity in 2021, significantly higher than the 3.67 percent limit set under the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—defunct because Trump recognized that the US needed to return to its long-standing policy of crippling sanctions against the terrorist state. This is a key difference between the current situation and Bush’s actions in Iraq. I knew before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that Iraq did not have a WMD program—and I knew this because I read the IAEA reports. All those who are saying Trump is controlled by Netanyahu are either ignorant of the IAEA reporting or sidestepping it.
This development dramatically shortens the timeline needed for Iran to assemble a nuclear weapon and increases the difficulty for Western intelligence to detect and respond to such a move in time. Operation Midnight Hammer was a long time in planning. If there was any coordination between Israel and the US, Israel achieving air supremacy over Iran was to make it impossible for the Iranians to prevent the US operation, which could not have been accomplished by Israel. As advanced as their military is, it can’t compare to American military might. Nothing compares to US military capability.
The fact is that Iran’s uranium enrichment program undermines nonproliferation efforts and rightly raises fears among regional powers, most immediately among Israel and Sunni Arab states, of a cascading arms race in the Middle East. The higher enrichment level underscored the urgency to halt Iran’s progress. If Iran is not suicidal—and that’s a big if—it will come back to the negotiating table and establish meaningful limits backed by credible enforcement mechanisms.
As for the calls to impeach the President, which Democrats will if they regain control of Congress (if you haven’t realized it by now, Democrats don’t believe in the Constitution or democratic republicanism), the President of the United States has clear authority to meet the urgency of situations such as these with military force—without a congressional declaration of war. Trump’s authority is rooted in Article II of the US Constitution, which designates the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. While Congress holds the power to declare war, modern interpretations and historical precedent allow Presidents to engage in limited military actions to protect national interests, conduct counterterrorism operations, and respond to imminent threats.
The historical precedent extends to the beginning of the Republic. Under John Adams, during the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800), an undeclared naval conflict sparked by French seizures of American merchant ships. In response, Adams authorized US naval forces to defend American commerce and engage French vessels in the Atlantic. Congress did not declare war. Instead, it passed laws authorizing naval engagements and the expansion of the Navy, effectively endorsing Adams’ use of force. This is the earliest instance I have found of US military action initiated without a formal war declaration. Correct me if I am wrong.
Thomas Jefferson similarly acted without a formal declaration of war during the First Barbary War (1801–1805). Christopher Hitchens turned me on to this case years ago in an argument with Bill Mahr. Upon taking office, Jefferson refused to continue paying tribute to the Barbary States and sent US naval forces to the Mediterranean to protect American ships and pressure the rulers of Tripoli. After the Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the United States, Jefferson responded militarily without waiting for Congress to formally declare war. Instead, he informed Congress, which dutifully granted him retroactive approval and funding for sustained operations.
It continued this way until Congress attempted to reign in Article II powers with the War Powers Act (WPA), which it passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War (enacted over President Nixon’s veto). Nixon has escalated the war in Vietnam without a formal declaration of war by Congress. But even then, Congress did not forbid the President from exercising military power without a congressional act of war. In other words, the WPA affirmed the President’s authority to conduct military operations without a formal declaration of war.
The WPA requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. It mandates that military engagement must end within 60 days unless Congress grants an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or formally declares war (with an additional 30-day withdrawal period is allowed if necessary). However, presidents since have contested or sidestepped the WPA, asserting that the Act infringes on their Article II powers.
Here’s where Democrats are especially hypocritical. I see almost every other day on social media love letters to Obama. But Obama gives us one of the most dramatic uses of military power since the WPA with US military intervention in Libya in 2011. As part of a NATO-led coalition, US forces launched airstrikes and conducted operations that ultimately resulted in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi’s government, transforming Libya from the most affluent African nation to an open slave market.
Although Obama reported the military action to Congress, he argued that the intervention did not rise to the level of “hostilities” as defined by the WPR and therefore did not trigger the requirement for congressional approval within 60 days. If Libya did not rise to the level of hostilities as defined by the Act, I must not know what the word “hostilities” means.
Another example came in 2014 when Obama authorized sustained airstrikes and military operations in Iraq and Syria against the ISIS. Obama did not seek new congressional authorization, instead relying on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—originally passed to target al-Qaeda after 9/11—as legal justification. As a point of fact, ISIS did not exist when the AUMF was passed. Nevertheless, US military operations in Syria expanded significantly, including drone strikes, logistical support for allied militias, and even special forces missions.
(Obama loved to exercise military force. And, for the record, while I condemn Obama for the Libya action, I am less inclined to get worked up by actions degrading the capacity of terrorists to terrorize populations. Indeed, I don’t get worked up at all about it.)
Many Americans are unaware of the tremendous power the framers vested in the Office of the President. Many Democrats are aware of it but only valorize it when a man from their party is in power. They feel the same away about the federal judiciary (which, granted, was never intended to have the power of the executive and legislative branches).
Finally, I think that what confuses people is the difference between military action and war. Military action can certainly be seen as act of war, but it is not war. An act of war refers to aggression or specific hostile—e.g., an attack, bombing, or invasion—that one state commits against another, typically a discrete act or series of actions that may or may not lead to a broader, sustained conflict. Being at war refers to a formal or ongoing state of armed conflict between entities or nations, often recognized legally through declarations of war (e.g., World War II) or continuous military engagement (e.g., the Vietnam War). While an act of war can provoke a state of war, the two concepts are distinct. We are not at war with Iran.
freedom and reason 