I could also say it clearly: I am in favor of regime change in Iran.
The Islamic fanatics who have been ruling Iran since 1979 are murderers, torturers and exporters of terrorism. They are despised, or at least unwanted, by most Iranians, and Iranians who are caught expressing their opinions on this matter end up killed, imprisoned, tortured, or all three. Furthermore, the regime has been an avowed and avowed enemy of the United States for decades.
That checks a lot of boxes for me.
In reality, only two important boxes remain unchecked as the Trump administration continues to amass the region's largest concentration of American military power since the Iraq War.
The first: Does the administration have a viable plan? In other words, can he achieve a military victory and secure the country afterwards?
No one – at least no one outside the administration – has any idea. This is because if President Trump carries out a full-scale attack, it will have been the least discussed voluntary war in living memory, if not ever. The declaration of war on Japan, just one day after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, was less debated, but for fairly obvious reasons.
The second box to check is related to the first: Congress has not held any hearings on going to war in Iran, much less authorized a war. And we must be clear: Just because Congress hasn't given the green light to a war doesn't mean the president is free to launch one. It means that, as a constitutional matter, a war would be illegal.
Think about it this way: if I don't have your permission to come into your house and take what I want, we're not in a gray area. The default legal setting is that you are not allowed to rob a person unless expressly stated otherwise.
But my point here is not to write the billionth column about Congress abdicating its constitutional role or to do my part in the war on insomnia by offering another tedious discussion of the War Powers Act.
Rather, it is to illustrate a different point: if you are in favor of the constitutional process only when you like the results, you are not actually in favor of the Constitution.
In debates about Trump's corrupt presidency, defenders – including Trump himself – will often argue that it was necessary to do X as a way to sidestep the question of whether he had the authority to do X.
Such was much of the debate over Trump's tariffs and the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn them. Trump says tariffs are good and important and therefore the court should allow them. When the justices did not back him, Trump smeared the majority by saying they were “influenced by foreign interests.” He also said that they were cowards, unpatriotic, stupid, etc.
This is the same president who said: “I have great respect for the Supreme Court.“He doesn't do much. What he respects are the facilitators.
In fact, I have long maintained that Trump practices “Trump's critical theory which maintains that any individual or institution that upsets the president is objectively evil and has evil motivations. The evidence for hating Trump or being unpatriotic (same thing in your opinion) is not giving in to his will.
This is not a novel idea either.
My point is that just because Trump – or any president – is pursuing a policy you support without respecting the rules, it will only be a matter of time before he, or the next president, pursues policies you don't support in the same way.
In our system, it is supposed to be difficult, and in some cases impossible, for any branch of government to do very important things without the approval and cooperation of at least one other branch.
The two examples mentioned here are among the most important and clear. Congress has the power to tax and declare war, period (and, yes, tariffs are taxes). The president cannot do either without the permission of Congress. In contrast, the legislature has no ability to wage wars or collect taxes. That is the job of the executive.
I thought (and still think) that Trump's tariff policy is economic nonsense on stilts. So you might expect me to agree with the court's decision. And I do it.
But I also think it would be a blessing to humanity, especially the Iranian and American people, if we could get rid of the fanatical Iranian regime (at a tolerable cost in lives and treasure).
Even if we assume (and that's a huge if and an even bigger assumption) that President Trump can do it right, I still think he can't do it at all without congressional approval.
UNKNOWN: @JonahDispatch
