It’s finally happened.
We’ve known for decades that Iran was working on a nuclear weapon, intent on destroying the “Great Satan” (America) and driving Israel “from the river to the sea.”
On Oct. 7, 2023, Iran used its puppet Hamas to launch an attack upon Israel, aided by fellow puppets Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels of Yemen, and with occasional strikes directly from Iran itself. All of these were precursors to what Iran will do if it becomes a nuclear power.
Rather than waiting to be attacked, Prime Minister Netanyahu decided a pre-emptive strike was necessary. On June 13, 2025, around 200 Israeli Air Force aircraft dropped 330 munitions on 100 targets including Iran’s nuclear facility in Natanz, killing at least 20 senior commanders and, later, many of Iran’s top nuclear scientists.
But to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, U.S. aid was necessary. On June 21, President Trump announced that U.S. bombers had directly attacked three nuclear sites with “bunker busters.” We don’t yet know how much damage was done, but it is undoubtedly substantial. Iran has vowed retaliation, so we await the next step.
It’s hard to argue with success, but we need to consider four questions:
- Was President Trump’s strike constitutional?
Article I, Section 8 says, “The Congress shall have power … to declare war.” But Article II, Section 2 says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” Not wanting to concentrate power in any one branch of government, the constitutional framers wisely divided the war powers between the legislative and executive branches.
But where does the power of Congress end and the power of the president begin? Congress has the power to declare war, but does this mean the president can never take any military action without a declaration by Congress? If a hostile power launched a nuclear attack on the United States, by the time the attack was discovered we would have less than an hour to respond. We don’t have time to convene both houses of Congress.
In 1973, to clarify the two branches’ roles in military action, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, providing that when the president commits troops into hostilities or situations in which hostilities are imminent, he must notify Congress within 48 hours of doing so. Then, unless Congress declares war or otherwise authorizes further military action, the president must withdraw the troops within 60 days, except that he may take additional 30 days if necessary for the safety of the troops.
President Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution, although Congress overrode his veto. No subsequent president has ever acknowledged the validity of the Resolution, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on its constitutionality.
One serious question concerns the responsibility to notify Congress. Trump did notify some members of Congress, but certain members – Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) could not be trusted to keep military secrets confidential from the ayatollah. But the Resolution stands as a congressional attempt to delineate the responsibilities of the two branches.
I conclude that Trump has acted under the authority delegated to him through the Constitution and is in substantial compliance (thus far) with the War Powers Resolution.
- Are pre-emptive strikes ever justified?
Under the Law of Armed Conflict, and under classical just war theory, war is normally justified only for defensive purposes following an armed attack. However, preemptive strikes can be justified when an armed attack is imminent. In the 1842 Caroline controversy in which British soldiers crossed the Niagara River to destroy a ship that way supplying Canadian rebels, U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster said pre-emptive strikes could be justified when the “necessity of self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” This has become a generally accepted principle of international law.
Given Iran’s attacks on Israel through its puppets, Iran’s repeated threats to destroy Israel and the United States, and Iran’s progress toward becoming a nuclear power (the exact status of which cannot be determined due to secrecy), I’d say Israel and the United States were justified in launching pre-emptive strikes.
- Does Iran have the right to become a nuclear power?
That’s a valid question. What right has the United States (or anyone else) to decree that Iran, or Somalia, or El Salvador, or any other country may not develop nuclear weapons?
The Law of Armed Conflict and the Theory of Just War were developed before nuclear proliferation became a burning international issue. But 191 countries, including Iran, have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that prohibits the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the five Nuclear Weapon States (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). All other signatory nations have agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons. Three nations (Israel, India and Pakistan) have not signed. Iran signed the treaty in 1968 and is thus bound by it. It has threatened to withdraw from the NPT but has not done so.
Besides that, Iran’s aggressive actions and threats of war make it clear that if it were to become a nuclear power, the security and peace of the world would be at risk.
I conclude that Israel and the United States have a right to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
- Didn’t the Iraq War prove that regime-change and nation-building are bad ideas?
At this point we’re not talking about regime-change. As Vice President JD Vance said, “We’re not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.” Regime-change and nation-building work best, if at all, when they come from within the nation.
However, this discussion presupposes that the Iraq War was a mistake. Maybe it was. But consider this: Desert Shield and Desert Storm put extreme Islam on the defensive, and they remained on the defensive for years afterward.
Was that a bad thing?
Colonel Eidsmoe serves as Professor of Constitutional Law for the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy (obcl.edu), as Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law (morallaw.org), and as Pastor of Woodland Presbyterian Church of Notasulga, AL (woodlandpca.org). He may be contacted for speaking engagements at [email protected].
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
