The Op-Ed writer discussed in Part I, Anatol Lieven, mentioned the "illegality" of this war. Many on the Left have discussed it. Unfortunately, in my 3/3/26 post ("Operation Epic Fury - Part I") I neglected to discuss this issue of "declare" war in sufficient detail. The Constitution does indeed give the Congress the power to declare war. But why use that word "declare?" As it turns out, the original draft of the Constitution gave Congress the power to "make" war. What a difference.
Imagine letting Congress sit around and debate making war. Hundreds of people having to decide. And what if Congress is in recess? Wait for them all to return to DC? After much debate, including whether the Senate or the House separately should have the power, it was decided that the President would be best suited to make war. This was especially so in terms of the need to "repel sudden attacks." But, did we really want to wait for Iran to have nuclear weapons, with the ability to kill millions of Americans, before doing what each of the last Presidents since 1993 said was necessary - not letting Iran get nukes. All the prior presidents felt they could put off facing the problem. Trump realized he could not. The time had come.
Personally, I never thought that an air campaign alone was capable of ousting the Iranian regime. Whether the President wants to commit ground troops is something only he knows. And now he has threatened to end the Iranian civilization. Hopefully, this is just more of Trump's bluster and intimidation tactics. We certainly do not want to annihilate the Persian civilization.
Iran succeeded in downing two American aircraft. But given the number of successful missions, that means that Iran was successful far less than 1% of the time. And what a tremendous success we had in rescuing those downed airmen. An operation conducted by our military, special forces and CIA. I'd like to think that every American celebrated that success. Sadly, I can't say if the mainstream media is happy, or disappointed that they didn't have a failure that they could pin on Trump.
Recently, I had a conversation with a friend about whether or not we could reasonably expect an "unconditional surrender" by Iran. I felt that was highly unlikely. Japan did not surrender after the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, even though over 70,000 people were killed instantly or shortly thereafter. In Iran, we have religious fanatics. And we know that the mullahs did not hesitate to kill up to 50,000 of their own people because they were out protesting.
Our NATO allies? According to US News and World Report, France would not allow US warplanes that were involved in striking Iran, to use its bases. Spain said the US could not use its airspace for US planes involved in attacking Iran. Italy, also, has denied the use of its bases to some of our aircraft. And the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer? "This is not our war?" I am curious as to why the Europeans had to be pushed to increase aid to Ukraine in their war against Russia. Ukraine, as they say, is right in their backyard. And Iran? Much closer to Europe than to us. I know. Trump does not always play nicely with our allies. But, as even the NY Times acknowledged - Iran, especially a nuclear armed Iran - is a threat to the entire world.
I want to end with a quote from something I wrote on September 26, 2009, and posted on November 26, 2009. It was simply titled "Iranian nukes." After pointing out that the Europeans (and the US behind the scenes) had as of that date already been negotiating with the Iranians about their nuclear program for six years, I said this: "The entire time Iran has vacillated between talking like they were interested in some deal, and then not talking and refusing to deal. In other words, they were playing the West for fools while building up their nuclear facilities the whole time." And that, my dear readers, is why we are at the point where we are today.
No comments:
Post a Comment