What the Critics Have Wrong About the Iran Conflict | Opinion
Perhaps the only thing more remarkable than the joint U.S.-Israeli decapitation strike against the Iranian regime on February 28 is the nature of the criticism of the action. Nearly all opponents claim support for the demise of the bloody-handed Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while simultaneously expressing outrage that the operation itself has supposedly violated a litany of laws, norms and other requirements that were necessary to proceed.
The most prominent objections are that President Donald Trump acted without first explaining his objectives; that he failed to secure Congressional authorization or the support of America’s international allies; and that he refused to exhaust diplomacy before choosing military options.
Aggressively questioning the use of military force by any government is healthy and, in a democracy, necessary. And there are always legitimate concerns about the course of any military conflict. But when opposition is more about obfuscating than informing, the process of deliberation and debate becomes tainted by unnecessary partisanship. Indeed, the thinness of the core objections to the Iran operation indicates that the Trump administration is on rather firm ground.
First, the primary objectives of the operation are obvious and reasonable. For nearly 50 years, the Iranian regime has been at war against America and its interests in the region, and over the past decade it had been escalating dramatically. Not only was Tehran moving ahead full steam toward a nuclear weapons capability, it radically increased its support for terror proxies in the region, culminating with the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led massacre in Israel. Even after its nuclear and ballistic missile programs were severely degraded by U.S. and Israeli strikes in June, the regime remained intent on rebuilding all of its bases of power including its nuclear capabilities.
Repeated criticism that the Trump administration hasn’t yet offered a specific “endgame” for the operation misses the point entirely—the only requirement is an Iran no longer able to threaten the region, or beyond. The type of regime that next governs, for example, is of lesser concern.
Second, the notion that the action is “unconstitutional” or “unlawful” betrays a misunderstanding of both the Constitution and historic practice. The original text of the Constitution granted Congress sole power “to make war,” but the final draft replaced “make” with “declare,” recognizing the unique prerogatives of the president (“commander-in-chief”) on national security. Ever since Thomas Jefferson waged “undeclared” war against North African pirates in the Mediterranean, all presidents have claimed such authority. And while the 1973 War Powers Act tried to curb its excesses, the Trump administration met the letter of that law by informing Congressional leaders prior to the strike, and now has 60 days to garner formal approvals.
…
