Iran bombing: Constitutional, but imprudent
It would have been better to let Israel conduct its own campaign without the U.S. joining its offensive component.
I believe that Donald Trump and his administration are serially straining and breaching the constitutional separation of powers. However, I don’t think the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities is an instance of this.
The Constitution, of course, gives Congress the authority to declare war. This was to ensure that engaging in military conflict was based on broad popular agreement and support. Formal declarations of war have fallen into disuse, but congressional authorizations for the use of force serve the same constitutional purpose and have been recognized as the equivalent by the courts.
Throughout our history, American presidents have asserted inherent authority as commander in chief incompatible with the constitutional intent of ensuring broad support, reflected by congressional action, before engaging in military conflict. Moreover, in the modern world, it is easy to envision actions in the national security interest not conducive to the open, deliberative congressional approval process.
The War Powers Resolution, enacted by Congress during Richard Nixon’s tenure and over his veto, tries to strike an appropriate balance for modern times. If the president initiates what the resolution calls hostilities, he has to notify Congress. If Congress doesn’t approve continuing the military action within 60 days, the president has to wind it down in another 30 days. Congress can grant a longer time to disengage. And if the president engages in hostilities and fails to notify Congress, Congress can call a halt to the engagement on its own initiative.
The War Powers Resolution has been widely criticized. Some critics think it excessively restricts the president’s authority as commander in chief. Others think it is an abandonment of Congress’s duty to approve engagement in military conflict before it is commenced. I’m the rare bird who finds that the War Powers Resolution provides a good balance and a serviceable process.
The War Powers Resolution clearly contemplates that the president will engage in hostilities that have not been approved in advance by Congress. Otherwise there would be no need for the rest of the provisions. In essence, Congress has pre-approved the president engaging in military action he thinks is in the interests of national security for a limited period of time.
Trump’s bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities comfortably falls within the War Powers Resolution framework and his administration has submitted the required notification under it. Trump intends for his bombing mission to be a one-off, not the commencement of a longer-term campaign. So, there’s not much point in Congress passing a resolution calling a halt to it since it is supposedly already over. If Iran retaliates in a way that Trump thinks requires a larger campaign, that’s really a new question and issue. It would be premature for Congress to decide to approve or disapprove an American response until the nature and scope of the Iranian attack is known.
Before moving to the merits of Trump’s bombing mission, as opposed to its constitutionality, I feel compelled to note how vile congressional hypocrisy has become, in both parties. If a Democratic president had bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, congressional Democrats would be defending it as an appropriate exercise of his commander in chief authority and Republicans would be denouncing it as a usurpation of Congress’s authority to declare war. The current roles were reversed during Barack Obama’s eight-month bombing campaign in Libya, for which he didn’t even submit the War Powers Resolution notification. There probably aren't a dozen members of Congress, in both parties, who truly care about the respective constitutional roles of the executive and legislative branches in providing for national security.
While I think Trump’s bombing mission was constitutional, I think it was also imprudent, although I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was reckless.
The threat of Iran’s nuclear program shouldn’t be diminished. The extent and intensity of its uranium enrichment is only compatible with a desire to build nuclear weapons. There are concerns about Iran developing missiles capable of reaching the continental United States. U.S. military facilities, as well as the territory of allies, are already within Iran’s missile range. It shouldn’t be forgotten, or dismissed, that the current Iranian regime regards the United States as the Great Satan and leads its people in chants of Death to America.
The question of how imminent a threat an Iranian nuclear weapon has become was rendered less relevant by Israel's decision to take action now to eliminate or substantially degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and its success in destroying Iran’s air defenses. That created an opening for the United States to use its bunker-busting capabilities to inflict damage on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities that Israel would have difficulty accomplishing on its own.
The case for the United States seizing that opportunity is a strong one. The alternative was for the United States to allow the Israeli campaign to continue on its own without joining its offensive component. I think that would have been the more prudent course.
Israel is a brave, democratic country in a hostile region. We should sell Israel the weapons it deems necessary for its defense and survival. However, its fights are not necessarily ours. And it is in neither our interests nor Israel’s for the United States to have too large of a role in decisions regarding Israel’s security.
Israel decided now was the time to take military action to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities. It is unknown the extent to which American action increased that degradation beyond what Israel could have ultimately accomplished on its own. By joining the offensive campaign, the United States made itself more of a target for any blowback without any clear understanding of what was to be gained by taking that risk.
Part of the reason I think the bombing mission was imprudent is a lack of trust and confidence in the current commander in chief. By publicly mulling the bombing campaign, Trump may have triggered or accelerated Iran moving and secreting nuclear material or assets.
After the U.S. bombing campaign, the hope was that Iran would respond in some limited, face-saving way. And, initially, it did, with a limited and telegraphed attack on a U.S. base in Qatar. Trump, however, robbed the measure of its face-saving value for Iran by, on social media, calling it weak and thanking Iran for providing advanced notice of the attack.
At present, it is unknown the extent to which the Iranian nuclear program has been set back or degraded. Yet Trump is putting pressure on Israel to call a halt to its campaign. That’s a big reason why it would have been better to let Israel conduct its own campaign without the United States joining its offensive component, and let Israel decide when it had accomplished what could reasonably be achieved.
As a display of military prowess, the bombing campaign was stunningly impressive. As a display of U.S. leadership, not so much.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.