Trump’s Iran War Matches the Founders’ Constitutional Vision

Almost immediately after President Donald Trump commenced airstrikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran, Americans began debating the legality of his decision. Some, such as Reps. Ro Khanna, a Democrat, and Thomas Massie, a Republican, utterly oppose the intervention and even insist it is unconstitutional. Others, such as New York Times columnist David French—and my Dispatch debate interlocutor Ilya Somin—take a more nuanced approach: Supporting action against the Iranian regime generally while worrying about both the prudence and legality of the present campaign. 

Caution is always merited in discussions of national security, and Operation Epic Fury is no exception. Arguments about war powers deserve to be taken seriously. But theories of war powers that subject the executive to rules mandating too much deference to Congress would hamstring future presidents faced with national security crises and undermine the Framers’ vision for an executive branch that is both limited and energetic. 

In the first place, we ought to acknowledge that an effective state of war has existed between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran for decades. The regime is responsible for countless attacks against American civilians and service members since it came to power in 1979. It has not only relentlessly pursued nuclear capabilities, but it also has built a massive missile and drone industry that threatens American interests in the Middle East and beyond–more than 57,000 Iranian drones have been used by the regime’s Russian partners on the battlefield in Ukraine alone. In other words, the Islamic Republic of Iran poses a self-evidently imminent and persistent threat. So did Trump have the constitutional authority to secure our interests against that threat through these strikes? 

Read more in The Dispatch.