Editor’s note: The Editorial Board is free to read and always will be, but it’s also how I make a living. It’s how I support my family. If you can, please subscribe or leave a tip. Links at the bottom. Thanks! –JS

The US was not under immediate threat by Iran. That the president decided to join Israel’s war against that country is the illegal choice that the Democrats are now talking about. That choice should not be made legitimate by congressional approval after the fact. Starting a deliberate war is an impeachable act. The Democrats must not allow themselves to be involved in the preemptive acquittal of that crime.

Prior to last weekend’s bombing, the Trump administration had been negotiating with Iran on an agreement to end its uranium-enrichment program. Israel opposes that effort, evidently, so it began a bombing campaign of its own. Coverage of it by Fox and others TV networks reportedly impressed Donald Trump. He wanted in on the action.

So Trump greenlit the use of the bunker-busting bombs that are heavy enough to penetrate the mountain under which Iran had located one of its nuclear sites. Israel has been asking for these bombs for years. It cannot achieve its goals without them. No president before Trump acceded. By getting ahead of Trump, it looks like Israel played him.

Administration officials now must rationalize that decision. They are saying that bombing Iran’s nuclear sites is not war against Iran. Trump’s allies are saying that bombing was a deterrent or a way to force Iran to bargain. All this conveniently leaves Iran’s leaders out of the picture, as if they are not going to see a bombing as an act of war. 

(As I was writing this, the Wall Street Journal and Reuters reported that Iran had moved missile launchers for a potential attack on US forces. Another last-minute update: Iran fired on US forces in Qatar.) 

The administration must also face the fact that even if it’s true that last weekend’s bombing “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, Iran now has more incentive than ever to either develop its own nuclear weapons or acquire them from somewhere else, perhaps Russia.

But “totally obliterated” isn’t true. 

A senior administration official told the Times “that the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it.” A separate Times report said that while Trump was thumping his chest to intimidate the Iranians, that gave them enough time to move “uranium and equipment from the Fordo facility.”  

That uranium is the result of the president nixing Barack Obama’s anti-nuclear proliferation deal with Iran. The Financial Times ran this graphic, which clearly shows cause and effect. While the deal was in place, Iran reduced the number of centrifuges it made. After it was torn up, Iran boosted production. (US spies evidently told Trump they don’t believe Iran is yet capable of making a nuclear weapon). 

Trump now says that Iran must strike a non-proliferation deal with the US or face more bombings. This is in spite of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s suggestion that diplomacy is impossible. “The ones that shouldn’t be trusted are the Iranians,” he told Meet the Press. 

Another obstacle is Benjamin Netanyahu. As of Monday, Israel has resumed bombing. If it worked the first time, I guess it can work the second time. Trump says the US won’t get bogged down in another war in the Middle East. Then again, he’s got problems at home. Things aren’t going that well. And anyway, war makes for great television.

For more, I contacted Elizabeth N. Saunders, a professor of political science at Columbia and author of a new piece published by Foreign Policy explaining the dynamics of presidents who use the tools of imperialism at home to become emperors abroad. Her Bluesky feed was essential reading during last weekend’s bombing. 

Does Trump know what he’s gotten us into and is there a way out?

One never knows what Trump thinks he knows. He is right in one way: diplomacy and some sort of deal is the only real way out of it. 

The question is whether he can get to a deal. 

The previous deal took two years to negotiate and he ripped it up and said he’d get a better deal quickly. That was in his first term.

It seems like Iran has more incentive to retaliate than bargain. How could it retaliate? What dangers is the United States facing?

It may have incentives to do both, but retaliation will likely come first. 

Iran has a range of options, but Israel has seriously diminished its regional proxies, like Hezbollah. Assad’s regime in Syria is no more.

Still, the US forces in the region, said to be 40,000-50,000 troops, are vulnerable. The US military has been publicly saying it has taken extra security measures for more than a week. This is not unknown to them.

After the 2020 Soleimani strike [Qasem Soleimani was Iran’s top military leader], everyone expected Iran to retaliate, even Trump, and they did, striking a US base in Iraq. Trump tweeted “all is well” and declared the crisis over, and ignored the brain injuries many US soldiers suffered. Perhaps he’s hoping retaliation will be limited.

Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz. As of now, its parliament has voted to approve the move, but that might just be to strengthen the credibility of the threat. [Iran’s supreme leader has the final say.]

A lot depends on whether Iran can do enough to save face and let Trump say, “OK, we’re done, let’s talk.” Then the problem becomes, what is his diplomatic plan?

Do you have faith in Trump and his team’s diplomacy? What would they offer and accept that wouldn’t be presentable on Fox?

Bluntly: no. Trump has systematically decimated US diplomacy.

I discuss that here.

In times of crisis, you lean on your experienced regional experts in government, and your allies. We’ve fired or sidelined the experts and our allies don’t trust us. Diplomacy takes a lot of spadework.

There was a deal to be had with Kim Jong Un in North Korea. Not to get rid of nuclear weapons. Their nuclear capability was a done deal. But to count them, verify, stabilize the relationship. Trump skipped right to the Singapore summit. He wanted the optics, not the details.

Optics is the problem, right? There’s no there there. Yet he can use conflict abroad to justify crackdowns at home. Militarism takes many forms. That’s what a lot of liberals are worried about. You?

Yes, very much so. We are at the end of a long process of dismantling the checks and balances on the president in national-security affairs. It didn’t start with 9/11, but it dramatically accelerated after that.

I argued in my Foreign Affairs piece that we are still living in the post-9/11 world and never had a reckoning after Iraq. And now we have the foreign policy of a personalist dictatorship. He can do anything he wants if he claims “national security” requires it.

The courts don’t intervene fast enough to stop real harm.

Meanwhile, he has systematically downgraded or starved counterterrorism resources in favor of immigration crackdowns.

So yes, I am worried, though I wrote that piece before Israel started this war and I was worried before Trump bombed Iran.

The Democrats could take a position of maximal opposition but I doubt they will. They will probably see a makebelieve middle ground. What would you tell Chuck Schumer if you had his ear?

It’s a little more complicated because it involves Israeli security, so I think Schumer himself is conflicted.

The Democrats are not taking positions of maximal opposition on much of anything, so I agree it’s unlikely they will here. They are dogged by the stubborn, unyielding reputation of the Democratic Party as weak on national security (I don’t mean that it’s true, just that the reputation is very, very, very sticky).

The bigger question is Republican lawmakers. 

Many will support this on the merits and have long been advocates of a tougher Iran policy. Others will see the risks plainly. But they will fall in line behind Trump and will not do much if any oversight.

There are overlapping, reinforcing reasons for this: the natural tendency to support a president of your own party in wartime, at least in public; not wanting to weaken a president’s hand on the world stage; the general retreat/withering/cowardice of Congress on most policy oversight but especially in national security; and the threats that keep Republicans in Congress in line for Trump specifically.

Join our community today!

Now’s a good time to step up. This scrappy independent newsletter needs you. The media is caving, universities are caving, the Congress is caving. It’s $6 a month. That’s it, but you can save more — 17 percent — with $60 a year. Or hit the tip jar.

Please think about it. Act today.

Thank you! –JS

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE FOR JUST $6 A MONTH!

---

Click here to leave a tip. $10? Thanks!

---