“It’s not politically correct to use the term ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be Regime change?
After his less than intimidating military parade with creaky tanks and friendly, waving soldiers, there was no way Trump would restrain himself from dropping the biggest bombs in the world on somebody. He saw all the glory Netanyahu got for his bombing, saw his own approval numbers falling and didn’t care about the intelligence assessments regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. So he couldn’t one-up Harry Truman but he could drop 360,000 pounds of bombs. It was the ultimate expression of power. And now we have MIGA? MAHA? MAGA? To which I’ll add MAMSA: Make Anything Make Sense Again. Please. FYI, Trump unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of the painstakingly negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, five years after he had this to say on November 10, 2013: “Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly, not skilled.” Prescient.
The real scandal isn’t whether Trump had the legal authority to bomb Iran - as Sharon correctly points out, presidents have been launching airstrikes without congressional approval for decades. The real scandal is that we got to this point at all.
According to multiple reports, Trump’s own envoy Steve Witkoff was reportedly close to a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran in April. We were apparently getting close to an agreement where Iran would cap their uranium enrichment to levels that would prevent nuclear weapons development. Sound familiar? That’s essentially what Obama’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal accomplished before Trump tore it up in his first term.
Witkoff went on Sean Hannity to announce this promising cap policy, then did a complete 180 the very next day, suddenly demanding Iran eliminate their nuclear program entirely instead of just capping it. Why? Because there wasn’t enough difference between the deal he was reaching and the 2015 agreement that Trump had spent years calling “one of the worst deals ever negotiated.” Trump couldn’t stomach the idea that a successful diplomatic solution would vindicate Obama’s approach.
So instead of pursuing the same diplomatic path that was working - the same path he had initially criticized Obama for taking - Trump chose military escalation. Not because diplomacy failed, but because successful diplomacy would prove his predecessor right. The man who built his political career on birtherism and demanding Obama’s college transcripts simply cannot psychologically accept that the Black president he spent years delegitimizing might have actually negotiated a decent deal.
This is what I call Obama Derangement Syndrome - and yes, ODS is far worse than any “Trump Derangement Syndrome” people claim exists now. Remember how Trump launched his political career? By demanding Obama’s birth certificate, claiming he was born in Kenya, insisting he release his college transcripts, and even criticizing how much golf Obama played. It was a whole Republican movement built on fabricating controversies about Obama where none existed - the tan suit scandal, the dijon mustard outrage, calling routine diplomatic courtesy an “apology tour.” Trump turned manufactured grievances against a Black president into a political brand, and that obsession is still driving policy decisions today. And now, has perhaps added us to an avoidable war.
Thank you for this clarity! I do think that people want the question of "Was this right or wrong?" to have a much simpler answer than it does and, barring that, are likely to fill in the inevitable uncertainty with their preexisting feelings about the region, the political context, and this specific administration.
It actually drives me nuts that cries that this was unconstitutional began so quickly. Per this article it’s not unconstitutional, though it does seem he broke the law when he did not consult congressional leaders. (Or did he? Is he going to? He is still within 48 hours I think?) It just makes the objections lack credibility, and that’s counterproductive.
The far, far more concerning thing to me is that the president clearly doesn’t use his intelligence community resources. He barely ever reads his daily briefs, apparently. And if that’s the case, on what basis did he make this decision?? Why did he strike, if it was not because of intelligence briefings declaring it necessary? Who or what convinced him to do it? THAT is the unnerving part to me.
I personally believe that it isn’t his failure to consult his intelligence resources, it is the fact that not a single member of his administration has the skills and experience for the jobs they were given! They don’t even know what they are doing so it is hard to give the president reliable, accurate information.
I see what you mean, but I actually have a lot of confidence in the people doing the intelligence reporting. But yes there is still a path through political appointees to the president that is questionable.
They actually said he just went with "his instincts" which is extremely terrifying because his instincts have been incorrect on just about every level.. e.g. tariffs... just wait.. the industry I work in is very affected by tariffs and the rise in prices is just beginning to hit goods that are coming in and now with oil prices being affected we are going to see prices going up on everything.
I cannot look at any of Trump’s actions clearly because the fog of his adolescent bully character leads the way, something that his own posts create (a smog - small mind <running> our government - of sorts). When he jumps on social media to call “loser” to anyone who opposes him, when he derides his own appointees over and over if they say anything that doesn’t suit him, he reveals himself as a toddler (I gave too much credit in my earlier sentence calling him an adolescent). Everything he decides becomes more than suspect to me. Those bombs didn’t just fall on equipment or stock piles or ideology, nor did they simply move chess pieces. Real humans lost their lives. Real American humans will lose their lives as this plays out. I am struggling mightily with discussing strikes and decisions from this inhumane administration with any level of objectivity. I have never considered war a good option, but with this guy leading - it’s a terrible horrible no good situation.
I know this is not the whole of your point, but I don't believe there is any evidence of fatalities by our bombs. Even Iran, which would be motivated to claim we'd killed innocents, said those sites had been long-evacuated.
I literally LOL'ed at Mike Johnson's line, "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress." Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, buddy. Show me even a single instance that Trump respected Congressional will?
The bigger question isn’t whether Trump has the authority to order a military strike. Ordering a strike does not entail “declaring war” which only Congress can do. The bigger question pertains to the need to do it and how wise is that decision. When a president orders a strike they should be using all of the information available to them to make that decision. In this case it appears he ignored available information and instead led with ego. That is what makes this president dangerous and puts this country in harms way.
I agree that the bigger question is in the wisdom of the strike. Congress didn’t specifically approve Obama’s use of force in taking out Osama bin Laden, but most people agreed there was an understandable wisdom in the decision, along with actionable intelligence. Should a president just say “well I disagree with the intelligence” of 18 intelligence agencies and make decisions based on what they feel?
Have you read the IAEA report from May 2025 regarding the concerns surrounding Iran's enriched uranium levels? This convinced me Trump made the correct call. (In regard to Tulsi's comments and Trump's reaction...it seems as he was responding to the postings of only partial portions of her March speech by some media outlets.
This. I believe courts have also generally ruled that a president is within rights to order military strikes within certain restrictions without Congressional approval. I don't love that a president has this power, but our precedent has generally allowed this power to exist. We're certainly within our rights to demand that Congress rein in the president's power on war (and they'd probably win that case based on the constitution), but there's no congressional will at the moment.
Sure thing. But were you upset about this and calling them out when Biden did it? Obama? Clinton? Or just now? It's annoying how much outrage there is this time by the left and how most of the people yelling the loudest didn't say a peep when "their" president did it. I'm no fan of DJT, but the hypocrisy is exhausting and BOTH sides are guilty of it.
While I genuinely appreciate how exhausting the hypocrisy is (and I've called people out on it myself), I think there also needs to be space for people to start recognizing these oversteps at any point. It's not hypocrisy when an individual learns something new and begins to speak out about it - the true test will be whether they hold to their newfound stance moving forward once it becomes more difficult to (i.e. their favored candidate is holding office). I'm all for attacking the hypocritical organizations (like the RNC, DNC, GOP, and Dems) but we need to allow individuals to gain new insight and opinions.
There is a beyond well-earned mistrust of the actions Trump takes. When somebody has spent an entire lifetime making bad, destructive, chaotic, nonsensical, self-serving decisions, then we all have the right to assume that this decision is the same.
If Trump ever assumes the intelligence, professionalism and experience of other presidents, and then behaves and earns the trust the other presidents have had, then we will treat him the same. Until then, he deserves all the outrage he gets.
The integrity and experience of the person behind the decision matter, not just the decision itself.
I also wanted to add that the entire administration needs to earn that trust and respect to be given the benefit of the doubt - and we don't have that either. Not by a million miles.
You’re mistaken. Just in the most recent incident under Biden, when he ordered strikes on Yemen in response to attacks on US shipping, several Democrats publicly criticized the actions as unconstitutional.
This is what happens when you elect a corrupt, unqualified clown as president. His cabinet is also deeply unqualified, but the republican lackeys in congress nominated them anyway. He’s like a spoiled little kid, always wanting to be the “winner”, except the game he’s playing is the fate of America, and he makes the rules up as he goes, ignoring the actual rules. I thought we could ride out the next year and a half until midterms, when we could take back congress, but now I’m not sure what we will have left of our country by then😢
I’m glad you answered this Sharon. I have had this conversation with a few people and none seemed to like my answer. We can disagree with the idea of bombings (and potential war). But Trump 2.0 is still not doing anything differently than previous presidents. There also seems to be antisemitism wafting through some of this commentary as well. Especially from the people like Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, etc as well as people on the far left. There are obviously some like Bernie Sanders who are always against military action military action/war in general.
The idea of regime change does make me nervous. I know that Iranians are currently suffering human rights violations. And yet the US has a truly terrible track record when it comes to regime changes. Across South America and the Middle East (and I’m sure other places I am unaware of). I’m wondering, have any of the US backed regime changes been positive in the long run for any of the countries? It seems that we have not learned our lesson if we push forward with that.
We seem to be in a bit more of a pot and kettle situation these days, don’t we, when we criticize other countries for human rights violations while we are using masked men to snatch people off the streets, renditioning people to prisons in other countries, arresting judges and members of the opposition party and using the power of the federal government against civic institutions that displease it?
I don’t disagree with you. I am very concerned the Trump admin will use rhetoric around Iran and potential sleeper cells to increase deportations and inhumane treatment of immigrants. For me this is a case of both things can be true.
Yes, he has already attempted to claim many powers that used to only be invoked in an actual declared war. If you can’t get Congress to declare one, just start one yourself. Solves that problem. Plus you get the added benefit of the general reluctance to criticize a “ wartime” President.
Ooooh yes, the rumblings about Israel secretly controlling world events behind the scenes via AIPAC are getting louder...and are transparently playing on old antisemitic tropes. Obviously we have an allyship with Israel, and obviously Trump listens to Netenyahu, but it doesn't actually require a secretly nefarious plot so much as the much simpler explanation that both leaders have *openly* talked about wanting to keep Iran away from weaponized nuclear capabilities. A lot of European leaders who are very critical of Israel feel that way about the Islamic Republic too!
As always, I think that threading the needle of criticism of Netanyahu and the Israeli government versus being antisemitic is really, really difficult, especially in these current times when people are using antisemitism as a political cudgel. I think Netanyahu is a terrible leader and very much in it for himself. I also think he's a master manipulator and has been playing this game for decades. But is me calling Netanyahu a manipulator also me playing into antisemitic tropes? We need to be able to criticize leaders without being dismissed for antisemitism.
I agree, which is why I wouldn't have used that specific example. People are using really conspiratorial and strange talking points around Israel, like how they are evil masterminds "controlling" our government through blackmail and money, and that's what I was referring to. And many folks will react to the word "antisemitism" the same way that many White people react to "racism" (or many men react to "sexism"), as though being CALLED the thing is worse than the thing itself, and "did you ever think that you're actually the one being hateful because you're accusing me of being the worst thing ever???". Not that you are saying or implying that, but it's a conversation that I have seen and had countless times now. People lose a lot of rationality around this discussion, is my point.
I do not necesssarily trust Trump’s thoughts on the Middle East in general. But watching how Europe reacted to the intelligence and actions was telling to me. Agreeing (or being unsure) of one action like taking out Iran’s nuclear capabailities (or trying to) doesn’t mean you suddenly agree with Trump, trust me!
This is an excellent point about watching European leaders’ reactions. I don’t know who has what intel, but the Trump administration’s claims of “Trust us, we’ve seen the proof” rings pretty hollow after all of the claims about Kilmar Abrego García. (There’s a long list of blatantly false claims, but KAG stands out the most to me.) In the absence of trust in the president and his administration, I’m going to start paying more attention to Europe. I’m assuming Bibi is trying to recruit them to his cause with similar/the same evidence?
I think that Europe has shown they have zero problems disagreeing with Netanyahu. From the news stories I have read they agreed that their nuclear program was concerning and right now was a good time to strike.
I encourage you to look into the IAEA report on the topic of Iran's enriched nuclear development. The most recent report was in May 2025. To say the findings were concerning would be a huge understatement!! Trump made the right call. Now, I hope we see an end to the evil head of the snake that is Iran's leader. The atrocities that have occurred under his reign are beyond comprehension. Iran's total GDP is less than that of Walmart corporation. The people of Iran have been so oppressed in every conceivable way.
Okay, but Walmart, if it were a country, would have something like the 21st highest GDP in the world. Most countries are far below Walmart, so I don’t think we can use that little tidbit against Iran. Everything else I agree with, though.
I am appalled that the Democrats have fallen into the political rhetoric of “this is unconstitutional”. Shortly after the events on Saturday night I discovered that it wasn’t unconstitutional from just doing my own research. The concerning thing is that people in his cabinet are saying one thing and now are saying another. They are untrustworthy. That’s the biggest concern. Back in 2003 we went to war on bad or made up info and thousands of lives were lost and or changed for the worse.
This. We cannot cry wolf otherwise when there are legit constitutional issues, like a lack of due process, no one will listen. I have no idea what’s the right path to take on the Iran situation. What I do know is I don’t trust Trump or his cabinet picks. What they’ve done to dismantle and destroy science in the name of “government efficiency” is appalling (and authoritarian) to me. Trust is earned, and he hasn’t earned mine. Therefore, I will always feel the need to question the decisions he makes. To not do so would be make me a fool and unAmerican. No one deserves blind loyalty especially the person holding the most important office in the World.
I deleted my comment because you said it better than I did.
Exactly. The person and the team making the decisions have to earn trust and respect, and these people have done exactly the opposite on a daily basis. I do NOT have to give the benefit of the doubt to the decisions of someone who lacks all integrity, intelligence and experience. Ever. I would be a moron to do so.
thank you for this. the concerning thing to me is that someone who is demonstrating very little cognitive acumen is making these decisions. And that Hegseth is steeped in a Christian Nationalism sect. These folks are making decisions that impact the world. (not to mention some of the other unqualified or cognitively impaired cabinet members)
Thanks for this explanation. I don’t pretend to understand what we should do with Iran. This all seems very complex and we don’t know what has happened behind closed doors.
I refuse to buy ANY book by a politician or “insider” who sit on their hands as the ship starts to lean, only to share information when it too late and they're safe in their cushy life raft.
On that note, WHY DO THEY HAVE TIME TO WRITE BOOKS?? I did not vote to give them the opportunity for their Monday morning quarterback tell-all. Get. To. Work.
We have a bunch of leaders in place who don’t have any experience to do these jobs, which makes this situation so concerning. Trump doesn’t take his daily briefings, so how did he conclude that the IC was wrong? Hegseth has little to no experience at this level. It seems that it’s a bunch of boys, with fancy new toys, that they just couldn’t resist testing out.
Now my brain can stop reeling trying to grasp the basics of this situation. The three points regarding “the debate of legality” and the acknowledgement that it will be a while before the general public has any real information on how close Iran came to enriching uranium to weapons grade levels is the baseline perspective that I needed before I dig any further. I definitely felt bullied by the general media to take a hard stance on a situation I don’t even remotely understand, so I am grateful that we have this space. I also found revisiting Elise’s article about potential US involvement in Iran helpful for context.
Now I’m ready to take on Steve Vladeck’s, friend of governerds, article regarding the legal stance on declaring war: “ If President Trump carries through on his bluster and actually does lead the United States into a shooting war with Iran, it will be more than a little difficult to use the law to stop him. That reality is not a structural failure baked into the Constitution, though; it’s a byproduct of highly debatable (and relatively modern) judicial interpretations thereof.” He removed the paywall given the current circumstances.
Bonus 158: The Supreme Court and the Long-Term Drift of the War Powers
The common narrative is that Congress has ceded its constitutional control over war powers to the President. But the Supreme Court also bears some responsibility for that deeply troubling realignment.
After his less than intimidating military parade with creaky tanks and friendly, waving soldiers, there was no way Trump would restrain himself from dropping the biggest bombs in the world on somebody. He saw all the glory Netanyahu got for his bombing, saw his own approval numbers falling and didn’t care about the intelligence assessments regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. So he couldn’t one-up Harry Truman but he could drop 360,000 pounds of bombs. It was the ultimate expression of power. And now we have MIGA? MAHA? MAGA? To which I’ll add MAMSA: Make Anything Make Sense Again. Please. FYI, Trump unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of the painstakingly negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, five years after he had this to say on November 10, 2013: “Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly, not skilled.” Prescient.
MAMSA...I like it. Now how do we make it happen??
The real scandal isn’t whether Trump had the legal authority to bomb Iran - as Sharon correctly points out, presidents have been launching airstrikes without congressional approval for decades. The real scandal is that we got to this point at all.
According to multiple reports, Trump’s own envoy Steve Witkoff was reportedly close to a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran in April. We were apparently getting close to an agreement where Iran would cap their uranium enrichment to levels that would prevent nuclear weapons development. Sound familiar? That’s essentially what Obama’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal accomplished before Trump tore it up in his first term.
Witkoff went on Sean Hannity to announce this promising cap policy, then did a complete 180 the very next day, suddenly demanding Iran eliminate their nuclear program entirely instead of just capping it. Why? Because there wasn’t enough difference between the deal he was reaching and the 2015 agreement that Trump had spent years calling “one of the worst deals ever negotiated.” Trump couldn’t stomach the idea that a successful diplomatic solution would vindicate Obama’s approach.
So instead of pursuing the same diplomatic path that was working - the same path he had initially criticized Obama for taking - Trump chose military escalation. Not because diplomacy failed, but because successful diplomacy would prove his predecessor right. The man who built his political career on birtherism and demanding Obama’s college transcripts simply cannot psychologically accept that the Black president he spent years delegitimizing might have actually negotiated a decent deal.
This is what I call Obama Derangement Syndrome - and yes, ODS is far worse than any “Trump Derangement Syndrome” people claim exists now. Remember how Trump launched his political career? By demanding Obama’s birth certificate, claiming he was born in Kenya, insisting he release his college transcripts, and even criticizing how much golf Obama played. It was a whole Republican movement built on fabricating controversies about Obama where none existed - the tan suit scandal, the dijon mustard outrage, calling routine diplomatic courtesy an “apology tour.” Trump turned manufactured grievances against a Black president into a political brand, and that obsession is still driving policy decisions today. And now, has perhaps added us to an avoidable war.
"Trump turned manufactured grievances against a Black president into a political brand, and that obsession is still driving policy decisions today."
That might be the most succinct explanation of Trump's whole political brand I've seen in recent years. Well said and all of it rings true.
And Trump suffers from ODS and a nearly fatal case of BDS!!!! MAGA all have BDS
Thank you for this clarity! I do think that people want the question of "Was this right or wrong?" to have a much simpler answer than it does and, barring that, are likely to fill in the inevitable uncertainty with their preexisting feelings about the region, the political context, and this specific administration.
It actually drives me nuts that cries that this was unconstitutional began so quickly. Per this article it’s not unconstitutional, though it does seem he broke the law when he did not consult congressional leaders. (Or did he? Is he going to? He is still within 48 hours I think?) It just makes the objections lack credibility, and that’s counterproductive.
The far, far more concerning thing to me is that the president clearly doesn’t use his intelligence community resources. He barely ever reads his daily briefs, apparently. And if that’s the case, on what basis did he make this decision?? Why did he strike, if it was not because of intelligence briefings declaring it necessary? Who or what convinced him to do it? THAT is the unnerving part to me.
I personally believe that it isn’t his failure to consult his intelligence resources, it is the fact that not a single member of his administration has the skills and experience for the jobs they were given! They don’t even know what they are doing so it is hard to give the president reliable, accurate information.
I see what you mean, but I actually have a lot of confidence in the people doing the intelligence reporting. But yes there is still a path through political appointees to the president that is questionable.
They actually said he just went with "his instincts" which is extremely terrifying because his instincts have been incorrect on just about every level.. e.g. tariffs... just wait.. the industry I work in is very affected by tariffs and the rise in prices is just beginning to hit goods that are coming in and now with oil prices being affected we are going to see prices going up on everything.
Kelly, I agree 100%.
I cannot look at any of Trump’s actions clearly because the fog of his adolescent bully character leads the way, something that his own posts create (a smog - small mind <running> our government - of sorts). When he jumps on social media to call “loser” to anyone who opposes him, when he derides his own appointees over and over if they say anything that doesn’t suit him, he reveals himself as a toddler (I gave too much credit in my earlier sentence calling him an adolescent). Everything he decides becomes more than suspect to me. Those bombs didn’t just fall on equipment or stock piles or ideology, nor did they simply move chess pieces. Real humans lost their lives. Real American humans will lose their lives as this plays out. I am struggling mightily with discussing strikes and decisions from this inhumane administration with any level of objectivity. I have never considered war a good option, but with this guy leading - it’s a terrible horrible no good situation.
I know this is not the whole of your point, but I don't believe there is any evidence of fatalities by our bombs. Even Iran, which would be motivated to claim we'd killed innocents, said those sites had been long-evacuated.
I appreciate that - for the moment - no fatalities. Thank you.
I literally LOL'ed at Mike Johnson's line, "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress." Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, buddy. Show me even a single instance that Trump respected Congressional will?
The bigger question isn’t whether Trump has the authority to order a military strike. Ordering a strike does not entail “declaring war” which only Congress can do. The bigger question pertains to the need to do it and how wise is that decision. When a president orders a strike they should be using all of the information available to them to make that decision. In this case it appears he ignored available information and instead led with ego. That is what makes this president dangerous and puts this country in harms way.
I agree that the bigger question is in the wisdom of the strike. Congress didn’t specifically approve Obama’s use of force in taking out Osama bin Laden, but most people agreed there was an understandable wisdom in the decision, along with actionable intelligence. Should a president just say “well I disagree with the intelligence” of 18 intelligence agencies and make decisions based on what they feel?
Have you read the IAEA report from May 2025 regarding the concerns surrounding Iran's enriched uranium levels? This convinced me Trump made the correct call. (In regard to Tulsi's comments and Trump's reaction...it seems as he was responding to the postings of only partial portions of her March speech by some media outlets.
“Does he have the legal right to authorize the use of force? Absent a way to stop him, the answer is yes.”
Am I misreading/understanding this? Because it does not make sense to me.
It seems to say, “if you can’t stop him, it’s legal.”
Which is absolutely the way this administration is running things.
But can we agree that whether or not he can be stopped has zero relevance on whether it’s legal?
I think you missed the point that EVERY president both D and R for the past 25+ years has done this same thing - not just this administrstion.
This. I believe courts have also generally ruled that a president is within rights to order military strikes within certain restrictions without Congressional approval. I don't love that a president has this power, but our precedent has generally allowed this power to exist. We're certainly within our rights to demand that Congress rein in the president's power on war (and they'd probably win that case based on the constitution), but there's no congressional will at the moment.
sharon mentioned this very clearly. if you read the article...
Yes, I read it. It didn't feel like Gina had, hence why I mentioned it.
Kate and Josey, I did. My point was Sharon’s last 2sentences.
Josey, I agree it is one of the important points. And I’m happy you mentioned it!
Just because every president has done it, does not make it legal!
Frequency/both sides does not make it legal!
Call them all out! Hold them all accountable!
Sure thing. But were you upset about this and calling them out when Biden did it? Obama? Clinton? Or just now? It's annoying how much outrage there is this time by the left and how most of the people yelling the loudest didn't say a peep when "their" president did it. I'm no fan of DJT, but the hypocrisy is exhausting and BOTH sides are guilty of it.
While I genuinely appreciate how exhausting the hypocrisy is (and I've called people out on it myself), I think there also needs to be space for people to start recognizing these oversteps at any point. It's not hypocrisy when an individual learns something new and begins to speak out about it - the true test will be whether they hold to their newfound stance moving forward once it becomes more difficult to (i.e. their favored candidate is holding office). I'm all for attacking the hypocritical organizations (like the RNC, DNC, GOP, and Dems) but we need to allow individuals to gain new insight and opinions.
Josey and Ashley, yes, I did. And I encourage everyone to do the same.
You can’t just say you support the constitution when you agree with you. It’s a matter of principle over party.
Sound familiar? Thank you, Sharon, for familiarizing all of us with that phrase.
There is a beyond well-earned mistrust of the actions Trump takes. When somebody has spent an entire lifetime making bad, destructive, chaotic, nonsensical, self-serving decisions, then we all have the right to assume that this decision is the same.
If Trump ever assumes the intelligence, professionalism and experience of other presidents, and then behaves and earns the trust the other presidents have had, then we will treat him the same. Until then, he deserves all the outrage he gets.
The integrity and experience of the person behind the decision matter, not just the decision itself.
I also wanted to add that the entire administration needs to earn that trust and respect to be given the benefit of the doubt - and we don't have that either. Not by a million miles.
You’re mistaken. Just in the most recent incident under Biden, when he ordered strikes on Yemen in response to attacks on US shipping, several Democrats publicly criticized the actions as unconstitutional.
But this administration seems so aloof about.. looking for accolades..
This. Exactly.
This is what happens when you elect a corrupt, unqualified clown as president. His cabinet is also deeply unqualified, but the republican lackeys in congress nominated them anyway. He’s like a spoiled little kid, always wanting to be the “winner”, except the game he’s playing is the fate of America, and he makes the rules up as he goes, ignoring the actual rules. I thought we could ride out the next year and a half until midterms, when we could take back congress, but now I’m not sure what we will have left of our country by then😢
I’m glad you answered this Sharon. I have had this conversation with a few people and none seemed to like my answer. We can disagree with the idea of bombings (and potential war). But Trump 2.0 is still not doing anything differently than previous presidents. There also seems to be antisemitism wafting through some of this commentary as well. Especially from the people like Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, etc as well as people on the far left. There are obviously some like Bernie Sanders who are always against military action military action/war in general.
The idea of regime change does make me nervous. I know that Iranians are currently suffering human rights violations. And yet the US has a truly terrible track record when it comes to regime changes. Across South America and the Middle East (and I’m sure other places I am unaware of). I’m wondering, have any of the US backed regime changes been positive in the long run for any of the countries? It seems that we have not learned our lesson if we push forward with that.
We seem to be in a bit more of a pot and kettle situation these days, don’t we, when we criticize other countries for human rights violations while we are using masked men to snatch people off the streets, renditioning people to prisons in other countries, arresting judges and members of the opposition party and using the power of the federal government against civic institutions that displease it?
I don’t disagree with you. I am very concerned the Trump admin will use rhetoric around Iran and potential sleeper cells to increase deportations and inhumane treatment of immigrants. For me this is a case of both things can be true.
Yes, he has already attempted to claim many powers that used to only be invoked in an actual declared war. If you can’t get Congress to declare one, just start one yourself. Solves that problem. Plus you get the added benefit of the general reluctance to criticize a “ wartime” President.
I could also see him using sleeper cell threats to excuse deploying troops/National Guard to certain cities
Ooooh yes, the rumblings about Israel secretly controlling world events behind the scenes via AIPAC are getting louder...and are transparently playing on old antisemitic tropes. Obviously we have an allyship with Israel, and obviously Trump listens to Netenyahu, but it doesn't actually require a secretly nefarious plot so much as the much simpler explanation that both leaders have *openly* talked about wanting to keep Iran away from weaponized nuclear capabilities. A lot of European leaders who are very critical of Israel feel that way about the Islamic Republic too!
As always, I think that threading the needle of criticism of Netanyahu and the Israeli government versus being antisemitic is really, really difficult, especially in these current times when people are using antisemitism as a political cudgel. I think Netanyahu is a terrible leader and very much in it for himself. I also think he's a master manipulator and has been playing this game for decades. But is me calling Netanyahu a manipulator also me playing into antisemitic tropes? We need to be able to criticize leaders without being dismissed for antisemitism.
I agree, which is why I wouldn't have used that specific example. People are using really conspiratorial and strange talking points around Israel, like how they are evil masterminds "controlling" our government through blackmail and money, and that's what I was referring to. And many folks will react to the word "antisemitism" the same way that many White people react to "racism" (or many men react to "sexism"), as though being CALLED the thing is worse than the thing itself, and "did you ever think that you're actually the one being hateful because you're accusing me of being the worst thing ever???". Not that you are saying or implying that, but it's a conversation that I have seen and had countless times now. People lose a lot of rationality around this discussion, is my point.
I do not necesssarily trust Trump’s thoughts on the Middle East in general. But watching how Europe reacted to the intelligence and actions was telling to me. Agreeing (or being unsure) of one action like taking out Iran’s nuclear capabailities (or trying to) doesn’t mean you suddenly agree with Trump, trust me!
This is an excellent point about watching European leaders’ reactions. I don’t know who has what intel, but the Trump administration’s claims of “Trust us, we’ve seen the proof” rings pretty hollow after all of the claims about Kilmar Abrego García. (There’s a long list of blatantly false claims, but KAG stands out the most to me.) In the absence of trust in the president and his administration, I’m going to start paying more attention to Europe. I’m assuming Bibi is trying to recruit them to his cause with similar/the same evidence?
I think that Europe has shown they have zero problems disagreeing with Netanyahu. From the news stories I have read they agreed that their nuclear program was concerning and right now was a good time to strike.
I encourage you to look into the IAEA report on the topic of Iran's enriched nuclear development. The most recent report was in May 2025. To say the findings were concerning would be a huge understatement!! Trump made the right call. Now, I hope we see an end to the evil head of the snake that is Iran's leader. The atrocities that have occurred under his reign are beyond comprehension. Iran's total GDP is less than that of Walmart corporation. The people of Iran have been so oppressed in every conceivable way.
Okay, but Walmart, if it were a country, would have something like the 21st highest GDP in the world. Most countries are far below Walmart, so I don’t think we can use that little tidbit against Iran. Everything else I agree with, though.
I am appalled that the Democrats have fallen into the political rhetoric of “this is unconstitutional”. Shortly after the events on Saturday night I discovered that it wasn’t unconstitutional from just doing my own research. The concerning thing is that people in his cabinet are saying one thing and now are saying another. They are untrustworthy. That’s the biggest concern. Back in 2003 we went to war on bad or made up info and thousands of lives were lost and or changed for the worse.
This. We cannot cry wolf otherwise when there are legit constitutional issues, like a lack of due process, no one will listen. I have no idea what’s the right path to take on the Iran situation. What I do know is I don’t trust Trump or his cabinet picks. What they’ve done to dismantle and destroy science in the name of “government efficiency” is appalling (and authoritarian) to me. Trust is earned, and he hasn’t earned mine. Therefore, I will always feel the need to question the decisions he makes. To not do so would be make me a fool and unAmerican. No one deserves blind loyalty especially the person holding the most important office in the World.
I deleted my comment because you said it better than I did.
Exactly. The person and the team making the decisions have to earn trust and respect, and these people have done exactly the opposite on a daily basis. I do NOT have to give the benefit of the doubt to the decisions of someone who lacks all integrity, intelligence and experience. Ever. I would be a moron to do so.
thank you for this. the concerning thing to me is that someone who is demonstrating very little cognitive acumen is making these decisions. And that Hegseth is steeped in a Christian Nationalism sect. These folks are making decisions that impact the world. (not to mention some of the other unqualified or cognitively impaired cabinet members)
Thanks for this explanation. I don’t pretend to understand what we should do with Iran. This all seems very complex and we don’t know what has happened behind closed doors.
I refuse to buy ANY book by a politician or “insider” who sit on their hands as the ship starts to lean, only to share information when it too late and they're safe in their cushy life raft.
On that note, WHY DO THEY HAVE TIME TO WRITE BOOKS?? I did not vote to give them the opportunity for their Monday morning quarterback tell-all. Get. To. Work.
We have a bunch of leaders in place who don’t have any experience to do these jobs, which makes this situation so concerning. Trump doesn’t take his daily briefings, so how did he conclude that the IC was wrong? Hegseth has little to no experience at this level. It seems that it’s a bunch of boys, with fancy new toys, that they just couldn’t resist testing out.
Now my brain can stop reeling trying to grasp the basics of this situation. The three points regarding “the debate of legality” and the acknowledgement that it will be a while before the general public has any real information on how close Iran came to enriching uranium to weapons grade levels is the baseline perspective that I needed before I dig any further. I definitely felt bullied by the general media to take a hard stance on a situation I don’t even remotely understand, so I am grateful that we have this space. I also found revisiting Elise’s article about potential US involvement in Iran helpful for context.
Now I’m ready to take on Steve Vladeck’s, friend of governerds, article regarding the legal stance on declaring war: “ If President Trump carries through on his bluster and actually does lead the United States into a shooting war with Iran, it will be more than a little difficult to use the law to stop him. That reality is not a structural failure baked into the Constitution, though; it’s a byproduct of highly debatable (and relatively modern) judicial interpretations thereof.” He removed the paywall given the current circumstances.
Bonus 158: The Supreme Court and the Long-Term Drift of the War Powers
The common narrative is that Congress has ceded its constitutional control over war powers to the President. But the Supreme Court also bears some responsibility for that deeply troubling realignment.
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-158-the-supreme-court-and-the