War with Iran

Our country is at war; people are dying.  We have a human responsibility to think about this  -- to decide if we think it is right and to do what we can to support it, if we do think it is right.  Regardless of what we think about it, we should try to solve such problems, at least with our vote.  In my life, while the USA has been at war, citizens have often been oblivious to it, living their daily lives without thinking about it.  Politicians like that because they are afraid of being criticized because of wars.

Destroying Nuclear Proliferation

I have long believed that nuclear weapons pose our most existential threat.  Thus, a consortium of countries should band together with the intent to destroy new nuclear weapons facilities, thereby dissuading further development.  (See Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.)

Although I was disappointed that the consortium consisted of only the USA and Israel, I strongly supported the summer 2025 strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Unfortunately, the world is still not united in thwarting nuclear development.  It seems that Iran was resuming efforts to build nuclear weapons or at least wanting to give that impression.

However, the current attack on Iran goes beyond nuclear weapons.  It has the goal of regime change, which is a different issue.

Defensive vs. Offensive Wars; Supporting our Allies

In the 20^th century, we became the strongest world power.  Our major wars were defensive wars (WWI, WWII and the Korean War), defending ourselves and our allies.  I believe in the phrase “Together we stand, divided we fall”.   We should defend our allies.

The Viet Nam war was murkier.  We were defending South Viet Nam, but the regime we were supporting was not a true democracy.  Were we thwarting the will of the people?

I supported our interventions in Bosnia and Kuwait (first war with Iraq) to protect those people.

But I did not support our second war in Iraq.  Just because you fear someone is not a justifiable reason to attack.  Such thinking could be used to justify nearly every aggression in history.

I also did not support our war in Afghanistan.  We were retaliating against a terrorist attack, fighting an amorphous enemy.  From the beginning, I questioned whether we’d be able to extract ourselves.

Nonetheless, I was very critical of our Departure from Afghanistan.  We are developing a history of abandoning countries we say we will support (Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Kurds, Ukraine).  (Note: with Ukraine, we have a treaty which requires us to step in to defend them.)  How can allies count on us for support?  Why shouldn’t they want to develop nuclear weapons, if they can’t rely on other defenses?

The second war in Iraq was an offensive war rather than a defensive war.  When countries engage in offensive wars, they justify the fears of other countries.  The more that individual countries fight offensive wars, the more strongly other countries can justify developing strong defenses, including nuclear weapons.

That’s why I am a strong believer in a rules-based world order with international cooperation.  I do NOT support President Trump’s “might makes right” philosophy.

The Constitution and the War Powers Act

Our presidents do not have the right to go to war on their own.  I’ve long maintained that the USA became a great country because of Separation of Powers, more so than democracy.  Our constitution gives Congress the right and responsibility to declare war.

The last time Congress declared war was in WWII.  Since then, Presidents have chosen to engage in military action without Congressional approval.

In reaction to bombings of Cambodia during the Viet Nam war, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973.  It requires the President to consult with Congress, in every possible circumstance, before sending USA military into hostilities or into situations which are likely to quickly turn hostile.  

Any such use of the USA military must be reported to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate within 48 hours (and at least every six months thereafter), detailing the circumstances, the estimated scope and duration of such hostilities, and the constitutional and legislative authority under which President acted.  The report is to be forwarded to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for appropriate action.

Such action must be terminated within 60 days unless Congress approves and “immediately” if so instructed by Congress.  However, the President can require an additional 30 days to process termination safely. 

Although Presidents have complied with the law by filing reports more than 130 times, Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama defied it.

The “in every possible circumstance” creates some wiggle room, but President Trump did “consult” with the Gang of Eight prior to this attack on Iran.  The “Gang of Eight” includes the leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence.  I’ve put “consult” in quotation marks because I don’t know the nature of the discussion.

 So, at least so far, President Trump has acted legally in this   Iran war.

It clearly would be dangerous to let one person make such a momentous decision.  Even if the President consults with his/her Cabinet and military staff, the President is a sole decision-maker and an administration is vulnerable to group think.  Thus, requiring that the President consult the Gang of Eight is important.

However, if a rogue President pushes ahead despite opposition from the Gang of Eight, a lot of harm can be done.  I have consistently expressed such concerns regardless of then-current President’s political affiliation.

President Trump is an extreme example of the danger in allowing one person to make such decisions.  As I have maintained since the 2016 election, considering President Trump to be an isolationist gives unwise weight to his words, ignoring his personality.  President Trump is most motivated by wanting power.  He is mercurial, easily insulted (and easily cajoled by flattery) and seeks revenge.  Allowing such a person to declare war is literally playing with fire.

Unfortunately, I am concerned that President Trump may feel he can get away with anything he wants to do.  He has, of course, said such many times in one way or another.  Republican legislators have encouraged him to have such blind confidence as have weak-kneed law schools and universities.

The Current Situation with Iran

President Trump has relied on surprise to maximize his military efforts and to minimize USA deaths.  That has been true for both strikes against Iran and the decapitation of Maduro in Venezuela.

Sadly, in today’s world, the President has a reasonable concern that if he/she goes to Congress for permission, the element of surprise will be lost because:

1.        Many people in Congress are political partisans rather than patriots.

2.        The press doesn’t use good judgment in what it reports.  (I hope that controversial statement is not a distraction to the flow of this blog.)

3.        It is harder to have secret meetings and votes in today’s world of surveillance.

Consulting with the Gang of Eight has avoided that problem, at least for now.

Securing international support can also undermine secrecy but is important.

Congress could authorize the President to engage in police actions against nuclear installations if the USA is part of a consortium that represents at least x% of the world’s population.  However, generally, such authority should not be granted.

This Iran war is clearly NOT focused solely on stymieing nuclear weapon development.  It is about regime change.  It might be justified in either of the following ways:

a)        Regime change is necessary to thwart nuclear weapon development because the regime has proven that it will simply start over if nuclear capability is destroyed.

b)       It is defensive because of Iran’s numerous aggressions since 1979.

c)        It is supporting the freedom of Iranian citizens.

I’ll discuss those arguments, but my main point is that these issues are not clear, which is why we should rely on Congress.  I feel much more comfortable knowing that the Gang of Eight were involved.

I’m not able to judge whether Iran has resumed efforts to build nuclear weapons.  However, if a diverse group of our leaders tell me that is their assessment of the evidence, I will trust them.

Iran has had an oft-repeated slogan of “Death to America”.  I don’t consider such statements to justify our attacking them.

However, Iran has broadly supported terrorism through Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi militias, Islamic Jihad, etc.  An international consortium police action against such terrorism is clearly justified in my mind.  In the absence of a consortium-as-broad-as-desired, individual nation action may be justified.

It seems more justified to initiate such police action against a country which is actively engaged in such activity.  Clearly, Iran’s activity has been muted since the summer 2025 attack by Israel and the USA.  However, it appears that Iran is continuing nonetheless and would resume past levels if, and when, possible.  Here, again, I’ll rely on a broad consortium reviewing the intelligence.

Some commentators note that because Iran was weakened last summer, this is a good time to attack.  Some people might then conclude that last summer’s attack was not an effort to block nuclear proliferation but rather phase 1 of a multi-phase plan.  All the more reason to involve Congress and an international consortium!

Iran also has a history of supporting attacks on USA citizens.  However, some of those have been direct, limited responses to USA strikes.

My “bottom line” remains that I support this effort, pending Congress’s vote, but I would have preferred a broader international consortium. 

I believe it is important for the world and the USA that the USA have a reputation of being a force for good.  President Trump has squandered our “brand”.  See President Trump’s Foreign Policy.

Regime change on behalf of Iranian citizens is a more difficult justification.  How do we know what a majority of people in Iran want?  Regime change has been hard to achieve and could be used to justify a lot of mischief.  It is convenient for me that I don’t have to make a decision on that basis, because Iran’s terrorism efforts would justify this attack for me.