Trump’s Attack on
Iran Is Reckless
Feb. 28, 2026
In his 2024 presidential
campaign, Donald Trump promised voters that he would end wars, not start them.
Over the past year, he has instead ordered military strikes in seven nations.
His appetite for military intervention grows with the eating.
Now he has ordered a new
attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in cooperation with Israel, and
Mr. Trump said it would be much more extensive than the targeted bombing of
nuclear facilities in June. Yet he started this war without explaining to the
American people and the world why he was doing so. Nor has he involved
Congress, which the Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. He
instead posted a video at 2:30 a.m. Eastern on Saturday,
shortly after bombing began, in which he said that Iran presented “imminent
threats” and called for the overthrow of its government. His rationale is dubious, and making his case by video in the middle
of the night is unacceptable.
Among his justifications
is the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program, which is a worthy goal. But Mr.
Trump declared that program “obliterated” by the strike in June, a claim belied
by both U.S. intelligence and this new attack. The contradiction underscores
how little regard he has for his duty to tell the truth when committing
American armed forces to battle. It also shows how little faith American
citizens should place in his assurances about the goals and results of his
growing list of military adventures.
Mr. Trump’s approach to Iran is
reckless. His goals are ill-defined. He has failed to line up the international
and domestic support that would be necessary to maximize the chances of a
successful outcome. He has disregarded both domestic and international law for
warfare.
The Iranian regime, to be clear, deserves no sympathy. It has wrought misery since its revolution 47
years ago — on its own people, on its neighbors and around the world. It massacred thousands of protesters this year. It
imprisons and executes political dissidents. It oppresses women, L.G.B.T.Q.
people and religious minorities. Its leaders have impoverished their own
citizens while corruptly enriching themselves. They have proclaimed “Death to
America” since coming to power and killed hundreds of U.S. service members in
the region, as well as bankrolled terrorism that has killed civilians in the
Middle East and as far away as Argentina.
Iran’s government
presents a distinct threat because it combines this murderous ideology with
nuclear ambitions. Iran has repeatedly defied international inspectors over the
years. Since the June attack, the government has shown signs of restarting its pursuit of nuclear weapons
technology. American presidents of both parties have rightly made a commitment
to prevent Tehran from getting a bomb.
We recognize that
fulfilling this commitment could justify military action at some point. For one
thing, the consequences of allowing Iran to follow the path of North Korea —
and acquire nuclear weapons after years of exploiting international patience — are too great.
For another, the costs of confronting Iran over its nuclear program look less
imposing than they once did.
Iran, as David Sanger of
The Times recently explained, “is going through a period of
remarkable military, economic and political weakness.” Since the Oct. 7, 2023,
attacks, Israel has reduced the threats from Hamas and Hezbollah (two of Iran’s
terrorist proxies), attacked Iran directly and, with help from allies, mostly
repelled its response. The new recognition of Iran’s limitations helped give
rebels in Syria the confidence to march on Damascus and oust the horrific Assad
regime, a longtime Iranian ally. Iran’s government did almost nothing to intervene. This recent
history demonstrates that military action, for all its awful costs, can have
positive consequences.
A responsible American president could
make a plausible argument for further action against Iran. The core of this
argument would need to be a clear explanation of the strategy, as well as the
justification for attacking now, even though Iran does not appear close to having a nuclear weapon.
This strategy would involve a promise to seek approval from Congress and to
collaborate with international allies.
Mr. Trump is not even
attempting this approach. He is telling the American people and the world that
he expects their blind trust. He has not earned that trust.
He instead treats allies
with disdain. He lies constantly, including about the results of the June
attack on Iran. He has failed to live up to his own promises for solving other
crises in Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela. He has fired senior military leaders for failing to show
fealty to his political whims. When his appointees make outrageous mistakes —
such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sharing advanced details of
a military attack on the Houthis, an Iranian-backed group, on an unsecured
group chat — Mr. Trump shields them from accountability. His administration
appears to have violated international law by, among other things, disguising a military plane as a civilian plane and shooting two defenseless sailors who survived an initial attack.
A responsible approach
would also involve a detailed conversation with the American people about the
risks. Iran remains a heavily militarized country. Its medium-range
missiles may have failed to do much damage to Israel last year, but it
maintains many short-range missiles that could overwhelm any defense system and
hit Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other nearby countries. Mr. Trump did acknowledge
this in his overnight video, saying, “The lives of courageous American heroes
may be lost and we may have casualties.”
He should have had the
courage to say so in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, among other
settings. When a president asks American troops and diplomats to risk their
lives, he should not be coy about it.
Recognizing Mr. Trump’s irresponsibility, some members of Congress have taken steps to constrain him
on Iran. In the House, Representatives Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, and
Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, have proposed a resolution meant
to prevent Mr. Trump from starting a war without congressional approval. The
resolution makes clear that Congress has not authorized an attack on Iran and
demands the withdrawal of American troops within 60 days. Senator Tim Kaine,
Democrat of Virginia, and Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, are
sponsoring a similar measure in their chamber. The start of hostilities should
not dissuade legislators from passing these bills. A robust assertion of
authority by Congress is the best way to constrain the president.
Mr. Trump’s failure to
articulate a strategy for this attack has created shocking levels of
uncertainty about it. He has called for regime change and offered no sense of why the world should expect
this campaign to end better than the 21st-century attempts at regime change in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars toppled governments but understandably soured
the American public on open-ended military operations of uncertain national
interest, and they embittered the troops who loyally served in them.
Now that the military
operation has begun, we wish above all for the safety of the American troops
charged with conducting it and for the well-being of the many innocent Iranians
who have long suffered under their brutal government. We lament that Mr. Trump
is not treating war as the grave matter that it is.
