By Dan Rather
How did we go from zero to the brink of war in one week?
Wasn’t Trump the candidate who promised to make America great again by ending “endless wars?” Yes, he was. And didn’t he claim he would settle the Russia-Ukraine war in “24-hours” upon assuming office. Yes, again. Just yesterday a Russian missile attack flattened a civilian apartment block in Kyiv, 150 days after Trump was sworn in.
So why is the president now strongly considering bombing Iran? There is no way to give a definitive answer to that question. The press is asking it every chance they get. On Wednesday, when asked about the possibility of the U.S. striking the key Iranian nuclear facility, Fordo, he said, “I may do it, I may not do it, nobody knows what I’m going to do.”
In case you think he misspoke or was taken out of context, he had this to say at a later Oval Office press availability: “I have ideas as to what to do. I like to make a final decision one second before it’s due.”
This is not a homework assignment or choosing a paint color for the West Wing. We are talking about one man ordering an act of war, bombing a sovereign nation’s nuclear facility. The repercussions of which no one can say. It’s also unconstitutional.
The above quotes are frightening enough, but there is also the question of whether the press is asking the right question. The right question is: Why do you think you can make war, without the consent of Congress?
The War Powers Resolution limits the president’s authority when it comes to military action, with the exception of being attacked by a foreign country. Iran did not attack the United States, so it is up to Congress to decide if we are to engage in the conflict. Has anyone told Donald Trump? Would he even listen?
The malleable Republican members of Congress don’t appear too worried about upholding their responsibility. One lone Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, filed a resolution (along with several Democratic colleagues) to require congressional approval for any offensive attack against Iran.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine is trying to force a vote on a similar resolution. He says the White House hasn’t briefed Congress about what is happening in Iran or revealed the president’s plans.
Historically, when a president considered involving the United States in an armed conflict, there was a long lead-up fueled by discussion, debate, and discourse, weighing the pros and cons of American involvement. Not this time.
A week ago, on Thursday, June 12, Israel preemptively conducted airstrikes on Iran, targeting the country’s uranium enrichment facility. The surprise attack killed most of Iran’s military leadership, according to the Israelis.
On Friday, Iran retaliated, Israel continued its assault, and Trump took to social media sounding like the odd man out. “Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.” Israel didn’t wait for or seek Trump’s approval to attack. He was left on the sidelines, watching like the rest of us.
By Monday, Trump was telling those living in the Iranian capital to evacuate. “IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” What? There are 9.8 million people living in Tehran.
An American president telling citizens of another country with whom we are not at war to evacuate? That has to be a first.
Wednesday night, Iranian missiles hit Israel again, while Israel continued striking Iran.
Which brings us to today. Politico and Bloomberg are reporting that Trump is leaning heavily toward military action by U.S. forces. (Specifically, dropping a so-called bunker buster bomb on an underground Iranian nuclear science facility.) Trump’s spokesperson said he will make the decision … in the next two weeks.
Trump says the possible U.S. attack is justified, to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability. But his own national security adviser, Tulsi Gabbard, told a congressional committee in March that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. “I don’t care what she said,” Trump blustered on Tuesday. He claims Iran is close to developing the weapon.
It turns out it’s not just Democratic lawmakers or Gabbard he has to convince. A large contingent of the MAGA faithful are apoplectic at the idea of going to war. Some of Trump’s strongest allies are turning on him.
Take long time adviser Steve Bannon, who said about Israel’s offensive, “Last night was a decapitation strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And hey, you’re putting your defense first and that’s fine. But we gotta put our defense first. And what cannot happen is to be drawn into another war.”
Or Trump cheerleader Tucker Carlson, who wrote that attacking Iran “would be a middle finger in the faces of the millions of voters who cast their ballots in hopes of creating a government that would finally put the United States first.”
Even hard-core MAGA Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has publicly opposed the president. Has she ever before opposed Trump?
John Bolton, a national security adviser during the first Trump administration and foreign policy hawk, has been at odds with Trump since he left the White House. Unsurprisingly, he is all for bombing Iran. But it is his insight into how Trump operates that is compelling.
He described Trump’s demeanor during a national security crisis as “frantic and agitated,” to The New York Times. “He talks to a lot of people and he’s looking for somebody who will say the magic words. He’ll hear something and he’ll decide, ‘That’s right, that’s what I believe.’ Which lasts until he has the next conversation.”
While Trump is on the verge of appearing weak(er) for not jumping on board to help Israel, he also has to appease his isolationist MAGA base. Lost in all this bluster is the lack of debate in and a vote by the United States Congress.
Whether to go to war with Iran now is a fateful decision. It is not one man’s decision to make. Not in America.
Dan Rather is an American journalist, commentator, and former national evening news anchor. He is known for his extensive career with CBS, including his 24 years as anchor of the CBS Evening News. Rather’s career spans decades, covering major historical events like the civil rights movement the War in Vietnam, and Watergate scandal.
