Why are we (close to) attacking Iran?

Actually, the better question: why is Donald Trump (close to) attacking Iran? He may have good reasons. It's time for him to share them with the American people - and Congress.

We need to talk about Iran.

In the last week, with the media focused on the Epstein files and the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie, the United States has moved an armada towards Iran. Two aircraft carrier groups and guided missile destroyers are now in striking distance.

Yet the President has said almost nothing about what he might do, much less asked Congress for authorization to strike Iran.

To be clear: the Iranian regime represses women, funds terrorism, and has wasted trillions in oil wealth. The world would be better off without it. Last month, it killed thousands of unarmed protestors, destroying whatever claim to legitimacy it still had.

But.

—

(The news you need. The “buts” you need more. Support both. For pennies a day.)

—

But the President cannot simply attack Iran for the second time in eight months on his own say-so.

Last June, the United States bombed Iran’s nuclear weapons research and enrichment sites. I worried at the time the attack risked dragging the United States into war with Iran. I was wrong. Iran barely responded. That was the good news.

The bad news: the White House said at the time that the bombings had essentially destroyed Iran’s nuclear program. But independent assessments quickly contradicted that claim, suggesting the program was mostly intact.

So. Before we run this drill again, the White House needs to explain its plans for more strikes — and what it hopes to accomplish.

Are we expecting to kill the mullahs and end the current Iranian regime? If so, do we have a plan for what happens next? Iran does not have a real opposition leader or any democratic parties ready to take over.

Would we be satisfied with simply a change at the top — as we appear to be in Venezuela?

Or maybe we are just trying to degrade Iran’s military further? Or finish off the nuclear program as we claimed we’d done last June?

Your guess is as good as mine. (Unless you’re in the Situation Room right now, in which case it’s probably better.)

—

(The oil down the desert way has been shaken to the top…)

—

I get why Trump doesn’t want to explain himself or what he’s planning.

White House envoys are still negotiating with Iranian diplomats, hoping to convince Iran to give up what’s left of its nuclear program. The more freedom of action Trump seems to have, the more effectively he can bluff, if in fact he does not plan to go to war.

He hopes to preserve some tactical surprise — though Iran is on high alert already.

Not having to declare his objectives ahead of time makes it easier for him to claim that whatever he does was exactly what he had planned all along.

And Trump himself may not have decided what to do. He may still be weighing the risks and benefits.

Finally, an maybe most importantly, Trump just does not like to explain himself — not to Congress, not to anyone. This tendency has only become more pronounced recently, particularly in foreign affairs.

—

Those are four good reasons (and one bad one).

But even the good ones can’t overcome the counterargument. The Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the power to declare war. Obviously, there are contingencies — and obviously, Congress has failed to exercise its powers far too often. But an attack on Iran would be the very definition of a war of choice, one where Congress should have a say.

What Trump does not seem to understand is that explaining himself to Congress and voters has benefits too. Winning an authorization vote would show Iran that the United States supports this strike and would give Trump breathing room if an attack gets messy.

Suppose Iran captures American pilots or launches a successful counterattack on an American military base, for example. What happens then? Has Trump considered the possibility? Or has the fact the United States took zero casualties in last June’s bombing and the more recent capture of Nicholas Maduro emboldened him?

—

—

Further, as I hear from you and see on X, many Americans — even many of those who voted for Trump — would like to see him and the people who work for him show more respect for the Constitution.

Trump will never be a humble man, and he wasn’t elected to be, but ICE’s aggressiveness in Minneapolis did huge damage to the cause of reasonable immigration restrictions.

He can show he has learned something from that debacle by discussing his goals and plans for Iran before this any military action. He may well have good reasons to act now.

At a minimum, he owes the country an explanation of what they are.