Was Trump’s decision to bomb Iran strength or folly?

James Fitzpatrick: Trump made the right decision striking Iran

President Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear capability represents a turning point in modern foreign policy — one that will keep the U.S., the American people and Americans abroad safe for years. It sends a signal to our adversaries: America will not tolerate the threat of nuclear-armed rogue states.

The name of my organization, the Center to Advance Security in America, is self-explanatory. We educate citizens about the actions of our government that affect their peace and safety. We believe Trump’s decision was bold and consistent with his “America First” outlook.

There is widespread agreement across the Western world that Iran must never possess nuclear weapons. Iran is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of others worldwide. Iranian leadership has called for “Death to America” and for the destruction of Israel. Iran has sponsored terrorist attacks and assassination attempts on four continents and in the U.S. It may have helped plan Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, atrocities in Israel, in which 1,000 Israelis were killed and American citizens were taken hostage. 

This is a regime that thrives on violence and destabilization, undergirded by martyrdom in the cause of jihad. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are the logical next step.

Every president since Bill Clinton has agreed in principle that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon. They haven’t all shown the same resolve, however.

President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal gave significant concessions in exchange for minimal limitations on Iran’s nuclear program — he even sent them $1.3 billion in cash to sweeten the deal.

Not to be outdone, President Joe Biden released $6 billion to Iran in September 2023 as part of a prisoner swap. The administration claimed the money was only for humanitarian use. But money is fungible, and the American people aren’t that gullible.

Trump’s “America First” foreign policy has always made room for denying the mullahs nuclear weapons. First, it would be negligent to shrug off a threat to the homeland. Even before Iran could develop intercontinental missile technology, “dirty bombs” or “suitcase nukes” could wreak destruction on a U.S. city. Second, consider the trouble Iran causes without a nuke, and then imagine a world vulnerable to Iranian nuclear blackmail. Finally, the mutually assured destruction that has maintained stability between nuclear-armed powers since the 1950s may not hold sway over a regime that welcomes martyrdom.

From his first day on the 2016 campaign trail, Trump has been consistent in saying that Iran would never obtain a nuclear weapon. His strategy unfolded in several phases: withdrawing from Obama’s Iran deal in 2018, reimposing crippling economic sanctions, designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, eliminating terror mastermind Qassem Soleimani and negotiating the Abraham Accords, which brought historic diplomatic breakthroughs between Israel and Arab nations.

In April, Trump issued a final 60-day deadline for Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Iran didn’t comply, so the United States moved to destroy its nuclear facilities. This decisive action will reshape global perceptions of American leadership and deterrence.

Iran’s token “retaliation” against an American base was ineffectual, and it has agreed to a ceasefire with Israel — a testament to the effectiveness of the administration’s strength-based diplomacy.

The era of red lines with no consequences is over. “Peace through Strength” is more than a slogan — it is a proven doctrine for ensuring American national security. This is the right path forward for the safety of the American people and a powerful reaffirmation that Trump is willing to act to put “America First.”

Editor’s note: James Fitzpatrick is the director of the Center to Advance Security in America. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.

Damian Murphy: Trump endangers U.S. by ignoring rule of law

Congressional approval for military engagement still matters. Here’s why.

The recent strike against Iran was perhaps the most consequential U.S. military action in the Middle East of the past decade. As it stands, early indications suggest the strikes significantly eroded but did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, and a tenuous ceasefire has taken hold — though it is far too soon to discern the real effect and longer-term consequences.

This leaves the American people with a question: Does it matter that the president skirted international law and congressional prerogatives if the mission is considered by some a “success”? 

The answer is yes. The rule of law still matters. Here’s why.

Despite the gravity and potential ramifications of such a move, Congress held zero hearings and had very little debate leading up to the events of June 21. Like much about the president’s second term, the way this played out was entirely outside the norm and could have lasting implications for how and when the U.S. decides to go to war in the future. 

While it may not feel like it since January, the rule of law still matters. The U.S. remains a signatory to dozens of international agreements related to the use of force, which ultimately protect our national security interests. We have a raft of U.S. laws, including a Constitution and Bill of Rights, that determine how and when our nation may legally engage in conflict abroad.

We are ill-served as a public when the most crucial decision a government can make — whether to put young Americans in harm’s way — isn’t subjected to the highest form of scrutiny and process.  

Trump’s predecessors went to great lengths to establish legitimacy before executing military action. George H.W. Bush also secured congressional authorization, a U.N. Security Council resolution, and a substantial coalition before setting out to counter Iraq in 1991. Bill Clinton sought consensus within NATO for airstrikes in response to the Kosovo crisis in 1999. Barack Obama worked hard to gain congressional support and secured a U.N. resolution for military intervention to stop the slaughter of thousands of civilians in Libya in 2011.

These presidents sought to establish such legitimacy for three simple reasons. First, they knew that the decision to engage in international conflict should be made with broad political support at home and ideally abroad. Second, establishing such support can and should lead to more informed decisions and effective execution. Third and most important, it’s the law. 

In advance of the attack, Trump sought neither congressional approval nor international legitimacy at the United Nations. And it probably wouldn’t have gone well if he tried. His handpicked Director of National Intelligence recently testified that the U.S. had assessed that Iran hadn’t decided whether to build a nuclear weapon. 

Moreover, Trump had no clear plan to defend U.S. facilities in the region, as his administration scrambled to evacuate embassies and rush military assets to the region. There’s no indication Iran’s uranium stockpile has been destroyed, calling into question how the U.S. will deal with it in the future. 

Most important, there’s no plan regarding Iran’s nuclear program moving forward.

Congressional scrutiny would have raised these questions and exposed these gaps.

Decisions on the use of force should be the most challenging thing to do in our system of government. America’s founders understood this when they sought to constrain the president’s role on matters of war. The authors of the War Powers Act understood this in 1973 when they sought to restore balance to the system following the Vietnam War.

The machinations of Congress can be messy and confounding. Yet, in a democracy, there is no substitute for ensuring the American people have a say in matters of life and death. It’s the way our system was designed to work and to ignore it would do real damage. The right to self-government, which cuts to the core of who we are as a democracy, should not be suspended on issues of war and peace. When robbed of that right, our republic suffers in ways that could be felt for years.

Editor’s note: Damian Murphy is the senior vice president for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet