Over A Month Into The Iran War - Part II

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.

Over A Month Into The Iran War - Part I

Recall that in my March 30 post I said that I would address the assertion by Robin Abcarian that this is "Trump's poorly thought-out war on Iran."  On March 22, 2026, the New York Times had an editorial focusing on what they said was Trump's lies about the war.  This is serious stuff.  War is serious stuff.  But the mainstream media sees it only as yet another way to attack President Trump.  I would say "shame on them," but they have long since lost any sense of shame.  

Here is something out of the NY Times editorial:  "There is a reasonable debate to have about the wisdom of this war.  Iran's murderous government does indeed present a threat - to its own people, to its region and to global stability.  Mr. Trump could make a fact-based argument for confronting the regime now, especially to prevent it from menacing its neighbors and, above all, from developing a nuclear weapon.  We are skeptical, but we acknowledge that there is a case to be made."

You see that?  After laying out the many reasons for this war on Iran, the NY Times says they are "skeptical."  I guess the Times prefers to let Iran continue to be a threat to its own people and to the region and even to global stability.  I guess the Times prefers to let Iran get nukes.  Do these people suffer from any cognitive dissonance?  My guess is they do not.  Because their Trump Derangement Syndrome is so severe, that they actually believe that anything Trump does must be bad - even if they agree with it.  Because Trump = bad.  

On April 1, Trump gave his address to the nation about the war.  Something I said he should have done as soon as the fighting started.  But better late than never.  Then Trump set forth his rationale for this war.  "From the very first day I announced my campaign for president in 2015, I vowed that I would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.  This fanatical regime has been chanting 'Death to America, Death to Israel' for 47 years."  Then Trump recounted some of the many ways Iran has attacked and killed Americans.  Trump:  "For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat."  Amen to that.  And every President from Bill Clinton forward has agreed.  And, until Trump, they preferred to let their successor's deal with the problem. 

Trump:  "As I stated in my announcement of Operation Epic Fury, our objectives are very simple and clear, we are systematically dismantling the regime's ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders."  Trump discussed all the targets that have been hit, resulting in a weakened Iran.  He thanked our allies in the Middle East - Israel,Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain.  And, perhaps his best line:  "This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future."  

As Barton Swain wrote in an Op-Ed in the 4/1/26 Wall Street Journal:  "If all you know about the war in Iran is what you read in the American and European press, you might conclude that the U.S. has never prosecuted a war so ineptly as this one.  In fact, nearly the opposite is true."  So far, the US and Israel have hit at least 13,000 targets in Iran.  

But here is an excellent example from the mainstream media about Trump and this war.  In the April 5, 2026 Los Angeles Times, was an Op-Ed by Anatol Lieven:  "America has betrayed its global mission."  His premise is that the Royal Navy ruled the seas for many years, and understood their job was to protect international trade, and specifically the flow of oil, and more specifically through the Strait of Hormuz.  When the US took over the role of protecting the seas after WWII, all was well until President Trump came along.

In case you had any doubts, here is Lieven's assessment:  "Apart from the obvious illegality of launching this war, the Trump administration's decision also displayed profound recklessness, incompetence, irresponsibiity and lack of foresight."  I think Lieven left out a few pejoratives.  Not a single positive word about the exceptional way this war has been conducted, nor about the stated goals of the war.  Instead, we have this lie:  "There was no imminent or even feasible threat from Iran to the United States."  (For a further discussion on the threats from Iran see my 3/4/26 post - "Operation Epic Fury - Part III (My Take).)

Here's a good one by Lieven:  "Beijing has so far been careful not to arm Iran, and not to stir up regional conflicts or to exploit America's difficulties in the region."  Not one word about how China has assisted Iran.  "China has provided Tehran with selective military and dual-use technologies - including air defense systems, drones, and surveillance assistance - while avoiding formal security guarantees."  (From the Middle East Institute.)  No surprise that if someone dislikes Trump, then it is probable that they will  dislike Israel (Lieven does), and not say anything bad about America's adversaries, such as China.