If someone more stable than Donald Trump were president, that president would be able to make a strong case for a surgical, limited, but devastating air strike against Iran.
Even Trump should consider such a strike, if he is willing to follow certain protocols. Iran’s Sept. 14 drone attack against oil facilities in Saudi Arabia was not a mere nation-against-nation dust-up, but an assault against the global economy. As the nation with the greatest wherewithal to retaliate without escalating the retaliation into a full-scale regional war, the United States is well positioned to teach Iran a lesson it won’t soon forget.
My colleague Tom Rogan, to whose expertise on military matters I often defer, argues otherwise. He writes that the U.S. should support a retaliatory strike by the Saudis. I think that is a very dangerous proposition. If Saudi Arabia does so, its long rivalry with Iran, relatively equal strength, and regional proximity all would make it far more likely that the result would be a full-scale war between the two. The bloodshed, the blow to world oil supplies, and the potential for multiple horrendous, downstream consequences all might be quite high.
Nonetheless, Rogan is right that somebody “must deter Iran from believing these kind of attacks won’t invite retaliation.” And: “Those responsible, almost certainly Iran’s hardliner-faction aligned Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, must face significant consequences. Absent those consequences, the hardliners will be encouraged to keep believing their escalation is clever… And Iran will regard America and Saudi Arabia as weak if this incident goes without a response.”
The U.S. has the capability to penetrate Iranian air defenses, cripple a few Iranian facilities with highly targeted air strikes, and leave without providing Iran an obvious target at which to hit back. Iran does not have the force-projection capabilities to strike back at the U.S.
If a limited but tactically effective U.S. armed response is both possible and warranted, then the question becomes how the president should handle the issue domestically. While I absolutely do believe a president has the authority for targeted uses of the military in response to provocation, without being required to secure a formal declaration of war from Congress, I also believe Congress’s powers in such matters have too often been attenuated in the last half-century. No president enjoys unlimited authority to commit American personnel to endless warfare on his sole discretion.
Because such a strike against Iran would involve prudential judgment rather than being catalyzed by emergency necessity, Trump should call in the three senior officers from each chamber of Congress to inform them of his decision and ask to hear their concerns, while insisting that they not “blow the cover” of the operation. He should also tell them of his willingness to be guided by the War Powers Act of 1973, requiring that he secure formal congressional approval before continuing hostilities beyond the act’s statutory deadline.
Then, as soon as the strategic strikes have been accomplished, he should give a formal address from the Oval Office explaining to the American public what was done and why, and also explaining that he does not intend the strike to be the predicate for long-running hostilities — and that he will abide by the War Powers Act as well, to make sure Congress maintains its due role in the process.
Iran must be deterred, and U.S. presidential power must be both asserted and simultaneously delimited. The overall impression, and reality, should be that sober, balanced, nuanced, rightful judgment is being exercised, in pursuit of the manifestly just interests of the U.S. and international order.
