Donald Trump, without authorization from Congress and without substantive consultation, took a fateful step in ordering the bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites, based on the false pretext that Iran was on the verge of completing a nuclear weapon. The consequences of this move have yet to unfold, and the breathtaking array of outcomes—from another forever war to a failed state in Iran to a quickly negotiated nuclear deal—makes it impossible to predict how this will affect Trump’s agenda and his ongoing assault on democracy.
His failure to get authorization for a strike in a war in which the U.S. was acting offensively, despite there being no immediate threat (no one with sense believes Trump’s contradiction of our own intelligence that Iran was on the verge of making a bomb) raises grave constitutional and political consequences.
Despite Trump’s war-talk Saturday night, Vice President JD Vance insists we are not at war. That, as even this crew understands, would require congressional action. On one level, such an assertion is preposterous—as we have indeed become combatants in an extended, ongoing war.
Whatever fiction the administration advances, as Tom Nichols points out, “the enemy gets a vote.” The most likely scenario, he suggests, is not as tidy as Trump would have us believe:
The Iranian regime will be wounded but will likely survive; the nuclear program will be delayed but will likely continue; the region will become more unstable but is unlikely to erupt into a full-blown war involving the United States.
Should we get bogged down in an extended war or face retaliation, Trump’s unilateral action based on a lie (not even DNI Tulsi Gabbard thinks Iran was on the verge of making a bomb) will be viewed as a gross error and a constitutional overstep.
In any case, Trump most certainly has violated the War Powers Resolution (WPR). Just Security explains:
Before the president involves U.S. forces in hostilities abroad (or circumstances where hostilities are likely), the WPR requires the president to “consult with Congress.” The WPR also requires the president to report to Congress within 48 hours whenever certain conditions are met that could lead to the United States getting drawn into a war that Congress hasn’t authorized.
Having failed to consult in any meaningful way, Congress must reclaim its authority.
“The heart of the WPR is its termination provision, which is intended to provide a mechanism to ensure the president does not continue to involve U.S. forces in hostilities without specific congressional authorization,” Just Security notes. “Under the WPR, the president must ‘terminate any use’ of U.S. Armed Forces that were introduced into hostilities … 60 days after the required notification unless Congress has specifically authorized that use of U.S. Armed Forces by statute, passed a law extending the 60-day period, or has been “physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.”
Regardless of its constitutionality, Trump’s decision to proceed without Congress based on a false pretext is outrageous, especially when the American public overwhelmingly opposes another protracted Middle East war.
The list of questions (quite aside from the constitutional ones) include:
Was Fordow destroyed or disabled? (Initial reports suggest the latter.) Will more strikes be needed?
If it was not destroyed (and we won’t know for some time), is America committed to further strikes (i.e., expansion of the war)?
Does Iran retaliate?
Does the war widen and U.S. involvement deepen?
Will Israel now end the war? (If not, and Trump’s claim of destroying Fordow is true, what justification is there for endless war?)
How vulnerable are American forces in the Middle East and around the world?
Will the regime crumble and, if so, who will take charge?
Will there be a negotiated end to the war?
What agreement will follow that, in essence, puts back in place the Iran Nuclear Deal’s requirement for inspections, monitoring, etc.?
Now that American forces have been pulled into combat, what impact (if any) will it have on the Gaza War? On the U.S. continuing to afford Israel military aid (since Israel can no longer say that it is not asking us to fight for it)?
The sheer number of unknowns and the potential for disastrous outcomes after Trump’s decision to enter the Israel-Iran war should underscore his recklessness. Americans have every reason to doubt that this White House and this Cabinet are remotely capable of managing whatever ensues.
Moreover, if Trump got nothing in exchange—e.g., a promise for Israel to end the Gaza war, a commitment to allow a negotiated end to the war against Iran—he will have once again proved to be the world’s worst deal maker. Americans are right to ask what we got out of this.
This would not be the first time that an autocrat has used a war to deflect attention, crack down domestically, and silence dissent. With his domestic agenda hugely unpopular and his legal losses piling up, bombing Iran would be the most dramatic (and dangerous) way to shift gears.
In just the last few days Mahmoud Khalil, the very first immigrant to be illegally rounded up, was released on bail; U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs in Boston granted a preliminary injunction to restore Harvard’s right to host international students; a federal court “ blocked the U.S. Department of Transportation from withholding billions of dollars in funding to states unless they complied with the Trump administration’s demands on immigration enforcement; and U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco sounded receptive to plaintiffs’ arguments that Trump could not banish unions in retaliation for opposing his policies. (Although California lost the government’s 9th Circuit appeal of a TRO issued by a lower court to stymie Trump’s national guard takeover in California, a list of issues -- e.g., possible posse comitatus violations, Marines’ deployment-- remain to be litigated.)
Meanwhile, Trump and virtually everything he has been pursuing is unpopular. (e.g., violent deportations of nonviolent, working people; a reverse-Robin-Hood tax and spending; savage cuts to healthcare coverage and SNAP; tariffs; his chaotic foreign policy). Poll after poll suggests that Americans do not want the America Trump is trying to create.
While continuing to battle on the odious reconciliation bill, Democrats cannot allow Trump to go unchecked, use military action to justify further deprivations of civil liberties, or sit by as the U.S. gets dragged deeper into war. As Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) put it, “We should vote as soon as possible on legislation to explicitly deny President Trump the authorization to drag us into a conflict in Middle East that could get countless Americans killed and waste trillions of dollars.”
A president who ran on avoiding foreign wars, lowering prices, sparing entitlement programs, and appointing advisers on the basis of merit has done the opposite. The voters must hold him and his MAGA flunkies accountable.