The Iran Question dominates the news.
Most papers and programs have numerous takes at the top of the page or the hour devoted to Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear program; President Trump’s demand that Iran unconditionally surrender, and the government of Iran’s defiance; and Trump’s latest statements vaguing up “his decision” to bomb Iran.
And in a man-bites-dog angle, I’m going to agree with The New York Times.
Specifically, the editorial board’s “America Must Not Rush Into a War Against Iran,” run yesterday.
Where the Times is right regards not the disputed facts and theories about the conflict, but whether the United States military, under direction of its Commander-in-Chief, should bomb Iran.
That is not merely open to debate but must be debated.
Many in Trump’s base oppose any involvement: Trump was voted into office to stop the endless wars.
But it’s not just the matter of politics. It’s a constitutional issue: “An unprovoked American attack on Iran — one that could involve massive bombs known as bunker busters — would not be a police action or special military operation,” the Times declares. “It would be a war. To declare it is not the decision of Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Trump. Under the Constitution, Congress alone has that power.”
And if we wince at the idea of our dysfunctional Congress grandstanding and bloviating about such a weighty matter, consider this: the congressional debate must occur in a context where Americans debate. We debate; the People.
After all, we end up playing lots of heavy roles in these things.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Krea and Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
2 replies on “Iran: What Next”
The Supreme Court could effectively compel Congress to debate the issue, by swiftly accepting a challenge to the authority of the President, and then deciding that Congress cannot delegate its authority to determine when the US goes to war. I sorrowfully doubt that the Court will take such action, but it could.
Even without such action, Representatives and Senators can make and defend motions in their respective Chambers of Congress. In theory, they could be expelled in order to silence debate, but I don’t imagine that a sufficient share of either body would dare to support such expulsion.
However, that share of the People who are rational about issues of public policy were long ago dismissed from the most important fora of popular discussion, and the courts have no authority to make places for anyone in those discussions. So I suggest that you let go of the word “must”, which has no power here.
Unconditional non-involvement actually increases the risks of ongoing wars that eventually drag the US into being involved. Curious that it works that way now that we have so many interests overseas that affect our wellbeing.
Extrapolating from Nietzsche, just because you are not interested in the abyss doesn’t mean that the abyss is not interested in you.