Some thoughts on the war with Iran:

First, I am thinking about the servicemen and servicewomen in harm’s way, as well as the civilians in Iran and in Israel and the Arab countries that Iran is attacking. I hope they all get through this safe and sound, though I know that’s not likely.

Second, the Iranian government has been among the most malign and destabilizing forces in the world since I was young. From the kidnapping of Americans during the Islamic Revolution to the AMIA bombing in Argentina to the attacks on the writer, Salman Rushdie, to the support and arming of terrorist proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the bombing of the USS Cole to the 2024 terror attacks in Australia—I could go on and on and on and on—Iran has exported war, terror, and destruction. I’ll comment on the legal dimensions below, but the world’s failure to put a stop to the Iranian government until (one hopes) now is a shocking failure. What makes it worse is that the Iranian government has so ruthlessly oppressed its own people, imposing a regressive and medieval theocracy on people who, like everyone, want something better for themselves and their children. The demonstrations we’ve seen in Iran and among expatriate communities in the last days show just why it is time for a new start in Iran. To me, an acceptable end to this war is one where Iran is no longer ruled by medieval theocrats, no longer has the capacity to launch ballistic missiles at its neighbors, no longer seeks nuclear weapon capabilities, and no longer arms and supports non-state terrorist groups anywhere in the world. That is not something the United States or anyone else can necessarily impose on Iran. It is something that the Iranians must at some point do for themselves.

Third, I have grave concerns about the legality of the attack under US law. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to declare war. This is not a new problem. Congress has more or less abdicated to the President in this area over the past several decades. It is right that Congress should now consider whether or not to approve what the President has done, though one of the knotty problems is that it is one thing to weigh in on war before the war starts, and another thing to weigh in on war when the war is underway.

Fourth, I have grave concerns about whether this President has the moral authority to take the country to war. I am not going to dwell on this. If you’ve read my blog for a long time, you know what I think of Donald Trump and his character. I’m not qualified to say anything interesting about the reasons why a war leader must demonstrate the relevant virtues in order to succeed. I never want to see the United States at war, but I particularly don’t want to see the United States at war with feckless and unqualified political leadership. Let me leave it at that.

Fifth, I always like to say that I am not an expert on public international law and can’t give an expert view. The basic rule is against the use of force, except in self-defense. I understand why that rule has served and will, I hope, continue to serve the national interests of the United States and the interests of others. On the other hand, the world’s tolerance of states that export chaos and terrorism by non-state proxies, especially in the service of illiberal and malign ideologies, and especially when combined with their development of nuclear and ballistic capabilities, has led to irreconcilable tensions between the real needs of states for security and at least the naive view of the rule against the use of force. Lectures by states and groups that have never been willing to confront the Iranian government, or have supported or apologized for it, are in my view remarkably hollow.