Operation Epic Fury - Part III (My Take)

I honestly do not know what it will take for the country to realize that Iran is an imminent threat to the USA.  Did everybody forget that 46 Americans were killed and 12 were kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, 2023?  And please do not tell me that Hamas is not Iran.  Iran funds Hamas (and Hezbollah and the Houthis) and supplies them weaponry.  Iran aided the various militias in Iraq when our troops were fighting and dying there.  And Hezbollah killed 220 of our Marines in 1983.  And Iran has continued to attack US military bases throughout the Middle East.

When do we say it is past time for Iran to pay the price? 

Iran recently bragged to Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff that they have enriched enough uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs.  How many times does Iran have to threaten the United States (the "Great Satan" to the Aytollahs) for people to believe that they want to annihilate us?  Do people really prefer that Trump give billions of dollars to Iran, the way Obama and Biden did?  Don't tell me how those funds were simply released to Iran, as it was their money.  What difference does that make?  The money enabled them to fund further terrorist attacks, and accelerate their nuclear program. 

So, instead of eliminating the threat that Iran is, we should shower them with more money, because that will make them want to be part of the civilized world?  If anyone truly believes that, then you are living proof of an oft used maxim in my blog:  "liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs."

I also don't believe the poppycock being voiced by some Israel haters that Israel led the USA into this war.  Every President this century - every single one - said that Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons.  But what did they do about it?  Either appeasement and/or sanctions.  Sanctions have never succeeded in deterring a country determined to get nukes.  As for appeasement...please.  But when Trump said that Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons, he meant it.  And, he realized that the only way to stop them was by military action.  Not by appeasement.  Not by throwing money at them.  Not by sanctions.  But by force. 

Unfortunately, some of our so-called allies in Europe and the Middle East refused to get involved initially.  Then Iran started hitting them too, and at least some have come around.  What a shame, however, that they would not stand with US from the outset.

As for me, I stand 100% behind President Trump in his effort to end Iran's nuclear capabilities and, hopefully, bring about regime change.  Iran has been a threat to America and the world since the Islamic revolution of 1979.  It is past time for the mullahs to go.  As one very astute world leader said back in 2009 at the UNGA meeting:  our fight against the religious fanaticism of the mullahs pits "civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."

May G-d bless America, President Trump and our troops.

 

Operation Epic Fury - Part II

So, who is in favor and who is opposed to this attack on Iran?  The friend mentioned in Part I argued that Trump should have obtained Congressional approval.  There is no chance the Democrats would agree to that.  First, they literally hate Trump.  Second, there is no way they would give Trump what would be perceived as a victory, with the midterms coming up later this year.  Does that mean the President can avoid the Constitution?  No.  But there is still the 1973 War Powers resolution, as well as the 2002 AUMF used by Obama, Biden and now Trump.  And, to be clear, I believe all recent Presidents argued that the War Powers Resolution was an uncontitutional limit on the powers of the Commander in Chief.

Here was former VP Kamala Harris, and possible 2028 presidential candidate, in opposing this operation:  "Let me be clear - I am opposed to a regime change war in Iran."  California Governor, and obvious 2028 presidential candidate, Gavin Newsom, was also opposed.  While agreeing that the Iranian regime must go, Newsom qualified his remarks by saying:  "But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people."

As much as I hate to say it, I agree with Newsom on one thing.  Once the attack started, Trump should have immediately addressed the nation from the Oval Office.  Given all the attacks by Iran and their proxies on the United States, not to mention Iran's continued development of enriched uranium and long range missiles, all in order to destroy what they refer to as the "Great Satan" (the United States), that speech could write itself.  Did no one in the White House advise him to do that?  Because the polls are not in his favor (see below).  Given all of the above, I am supposed to believe that the threat from Iran is not imminent?  It's been imminent and continuing ever since 1979.

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez claimed that "this war is unlawful.  It is unnecessary,  And it will be catastrophic."  Then she claimed that Iran was negotiating with us and an agreement would have "staved off war."  Is she kidding?  Iran has been "negotiating" with the Europeans and the the US since 2003!  The entire time they were developing nuclear facilities and then enriching uranium.  It was a ruse.  A stalling tactic.  Feign interest.  They would never adhere to any deal.  

PA. Governor Josh Shapiro agreed that Iran could never be allowed to get nukes.  But he called Trump's actions "Illegal and dangerous."  House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (who will be the next Speaker if the Dems take the House in November) said Trump was involving us in another endless war in the Middle East "that is going to end in failure."

When these people say the war is "dangerous," aren't all wars by their very nature dangerous?  Does that mean we never enter into a war?  I'm not sure I understand the point.  And for Cortez to say the result will be "catastrophic," and Jeffries to say that it will end in "failure,"...these comments might not meet the legal definition of treason, but they certainly lend support to our enemy and serve to undermine our troops.  

There were 3 recent polls - Reuters/Ipsos and CNN/SSRS, and the latest one from Fox.  The Reuters poll had only 27% approving of the attack on Iran, with 43% disapproving and almost 30% unsure.  By party, Republicans approved with 55%, only 19% of Independents approved and a mere 7% of Democrats approved.  With the CNN poll, 41% approved and 59% disapproved.  83% of Republicans felt that Trump had a clear plan, but 88% of Democrats disagreed and 70% of independents disagreed.  The most current poll is the Fox poll, with 50% approving and 50% disapproving.  That's not surprising to me.  As Americans, we want to support our troops when they are in harms way, fighting for us.  But, we also now that if the fighting becomes prolonged, support will likely wane.     

Operation Epic Fury - Part I

(Note.  Ever since the first year of the blog, I have been writing about what to do about Iran and their desire to acquire nuclear weapons.  For those interested in getting some history on the topic, here are some of the posts I have written.  Posted 11/26/09 (the day the blog started, but written on 9/26/09) - "Iranian Nukes."  2/21/10 - "Iranian Nukes, Part II."  3/11/12 - "What To Do About Iran?'  9/13/15 - "And Yet More Comments on the Iranian Nuclear Deal."  6/21/25 - "Iranian Nukes Revisted, Parts I, II & III."  All posts are still up on the blog.)  

Over the weekend, the United States and Israel began "Operation Epic Fury."  Before doing so, President Trump gave Iran the opportunity to give up the development of nuclear fuel.  They refused.  One question raised by some (mostly those opposed to the attack) is whether or not the President has the authority to unilaterally engage in such military action.  Law Professor Jonathan Turleys discussed the legalities in an article on Fox.  We know from the Constitution that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (per Article 2 Section 2, and there was no air force at the time).  

But Article I Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declar war.  Yet, the United States has fought many wars since WWII (the last time war was actually declared).  However, Congress has passed various measures regarding the use of military force by the President.  These resolutions are often referred to as an "AUMF" - authorization for the use of military force.  Recall the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing LBJ to use and expand military force in southeast Asia, even though the resolution did not include a decalration of war.  

There is the well known 1973 War Powers Resolution.  That resolution allowed a President to use military force, but with conditions.  The President must report to Congress within 48 hours of instituting any military action.  (It appears Trump did notify the so-called Gang of Eight.  These are the leaders in the House and Senate from both parties, along with the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees.)  The 1973 Resolution also states that military action must end within 60 days absent Congressional approval of an extension.  

But can the President just decide on any military action anywhere?  The Resolution provides for authority to the President to deal with "hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances."  In debating this requirement with a friend, he said he didn't see it.  I said I clearly see it.  Starting with the taking of Americans hostage in 1979-1980, and contiuing with the killing and kidnapping of Americans directly by Iran, or by their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah.  When do we say it's enough already.  

What about the 1983 killing of 241 U.S. military members in Lebanon by Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy.  Most were Marines.  But President Reagan took no real action to avenge that attack.  Instead, he withdrew our forces from Lebanon.  It is estimated that Iran, either directly or through their proxies, has killed over 1000 Americans.  And let's not forget that on October 7, 2023, Iran's proxy Hamas, invaded Israel, and in the process killed and kidnapped American citizens.  So, just when do we say it's enough?  What about the attacks on US military bases situated throughout the Middle East?  Again, when is it enough?  Are the threats to our military forces imminent?  Of course they are, because Iran has never stopped since the 1979 revolution.

In 2011, President Obama did not bother to ask Congress for an AUMF before going into Libya.  Nor did President Clinton get an AUMF for the actions he took in Bosnia.   In 2001, Congress did pass an AUMF, which allowed the President to take action against those responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and for the purpose of preventing future terrorist attacks.  In 2002, Congress did pass another AUMF, which authorized the President to use necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the US against the ongoing threats from Iraq.