Warring with Iran with Trump Bombs

Preparing for the fallout of the Persian Conflict

“Leonidas at Thermopylae” by Jacques Louis-David

The Israeli military said on Telegram that it is doing search and rescue operations in several locations where missiles were reported. It did not name where it was working. The nation’s ambulance service said the same in separate statement.
- The New York Times, June 22, 2025

As I type this, Israelis are sifting through the rubble of another missile attack by Iran. Even as the United States and Israel focus on military targets, Iran reminds the world of its true nature by attacking civilian targets in Israel.

When we put into perspective the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon in its arsenal, we have to start with the nature of the regime. We cannot assume that mutually assured destruction, between Iran and Israel for example, would be a deterrence to the Iranian government actually using a nuclear bomb. Nor could we trust that Iran wouldn’t use a nuclear weapon to inflict as much death and destruction on a civilian population for reasons that we in the west would consider to be completely irrational.

When the whims of an Iranian God inspire the state to call for the death of an author over a book or the deaths of cartoon creators, we can cease pretending the state is a rational actor.

Making matters worse, oil from the Persian Gulf is the economic life blood for much of the world. If Iran gains a nuclear deterrence capability, it will have de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz, and the resulting extortion is a price nobody wants to pay.

For those reasons, it has been a bipartisan policy of the United States to contain Iran and prevent it from developing a nuclear bomb. It’s a policy that had its origins in President Jimmy Carter’s “Carter Doctrine” that no power would be allowed to dominate the Persian Gulf. President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden attempted a rapprochement with Iran only to see those efforts fail to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

If President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are correct, Iran was too close to having a nuclear weapon to be allowed to continue the development program unmolested. Given the IAEA’s recent announcement that Iran was in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we don’t necessarily have to trust Trump or Netanyahu to recognize the potential threat.

We also have to conclude that now was the most opportune time for the attack, given Iran’s relative weakness and isolation since the regime change in Syria, the decimation of Hezbollah, the routing of Hamas in Gaza, and the preoccupation of Russia with Ukraine.

If we set the unfortunate existence of the Trump Administration aside, complete with that amateur foreign policy team, we have to conclude that bombing those sites was the correct decision.

Would it have been better for the decision to bomb Iran to have been debated in Congress? Probably. Does the Trump foreign policy team make us extremely nervous, especially Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth? Of course. So does the purging of leaders at the Defense Department under Hegseth.

Certainly, the lack of secrecy concerning the movements of the B2 bombers prior to the attack should make Americans concerned. Despite Trump’s bluster Saturday night, the inability of the Pentagon to maintain operational security could result in a disaster should the attacks on Iran continue if the Islamic government decides to retaliate.

Trump himself revealed his dangerously amateurish understanding of foreign policy when he clumsily demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” Trump ridding himself of any legal or intelligence advisers capable of explaining the implications of such a demand, and instead choosing advisers like Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, does not inspire confidence in his leadership at home or abroad.

But history doesn’t wait for conditions to be ideal. We’re given the leaders we have, the circumstances we have, and the allies we have. [“You’ve got to go to war with the president you have,” William Kristol told the New York Times.*] Israel successfully took out much of Iran’s defenses and military leadership. The United States hopefully completed the mission.

Support for this attack does not have to distract us from criticizing the Trump Administration on countless other issues, including Trump’s approach to foreign policy. He remains the single biggest domestic threat to democratic values, and his hostility to democratic norms extends to his foreign policy towards out allies as well.

But we can’t let our opposition to Trump paralyze our response to threats from abroad, either. Democrats would be far better off asking for clarification of Trump’s foreign policy aims following the attack on Iran rather than reflexively opposing Trump’s defense of American strategic interests in the region. Congress as a whole should both be supportive of the Trump Administration’s actions to eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program and make it clear that there will be limits on Trump’s use of the military, limits that will prevent a widened or prolonged conflict.

There will be further attacks by Iran, and further state-sponsored terrorism. It’s likely that some American base or soft target such as an embassy will be hit. Shipping from the Persian Gulf, especially oil tankers, will also be likely targets. There may be desperate acts of domestic terrorism as well. Trump was correct to make it clear that there will be an appropriate response from the United States in self-defense.

Let us pray for all those in harm’s way, and for wiser leaders to steer us through this crisis.

[*I may have read Kristol’s quote before I wrote this, so I want to credit it even if I phrased the idea differently. JW 6/24/25]