|
Trending Topics
|
Source: https://www.newsweek.com/what-the-critics-have-wrong-about-the-iran-conflict-opinion-11651484
What the Critics Have Wrong about the Iran Conflict
(Newsweek) Stuart Gottlieb - Nearly all critics of the joint U.S.-Israeli decapitation strike against the Iranian regime on Feb. 28 claim support for the demise of the bloody-handed Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while simultaneously expressing outrage that the operation itself has supposedly violated a litany of laws, norms and other requirements that were necessary to proceed. The primary objectives of the operation are obvious and reasonable. For nearly 50 years, the Iranian regime has been at war against America and its interests in the region, and over the past decade it had been escalating dramatically. Not only was Tehran moving ahead full steam toward a nuclear weapons capability, it radically increased its support for terror proxies in the region, culminating with the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led massacre in Israel. Repeated criticism that the administration hasn't yet offered a specific "endgame" for the operation misses the point entirely - the only requirement is an Iran no longer able to threaten the region, or beyond. The notion that the action is "unconstitutional" or "unlawful" betrays a misunderstanding of both the Constitution and historic practice. Ever since Thomas Jefferson waged "undeclared" war against North African pirates in the Mediterranean, all presidents have claimed such authority. And while the 1973 War Powers Act tried to curb its excesses, the Trump administration met the letter of that law by informing Congressional leaders prior to the strike, and now has 60 days to garner formal approvals. America's international allies were by no means neglected. If the initial military operation aimed at taking out Khamenei and his inner circle was to have any chance of success, extreme secrecy was required. Attempting to form an international coalition in advance - while the regime in Tehran prepared for war - would have been impractical and unwise. The charge that the Trump administration ignored the possibility that diplomacy could achieve better outcomes than military action belies reality. White House envoys made several attempts at diplomacy, but the barriers between the two sides - mostly centered on eliminating Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile threats - were all but unbreachable. Diplomacy with this regime had been a dead end for decades. This was not a specific "regime change" operation requiring a direct U.S. long-term commitment. It was a rare opportunity to eliminate a decades-old security threat to the region and the world, and offer the possibility of a better future for the Iranian people. We can all join in wishing for its success. The writer is Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.