GREGG JARRETT: Why Trump's preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was legal, likely saved lives
Right on cue, liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders declared that President Trump’s successful military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites were "grossly unconstitutional." Along with other Democrats, he argued that only Congress can grant such approval.
What Sanders and his colleagues fail to recognize or remember is that Congress already granted consent for exactly the type of action deployed by Trump.
'NOT CONSTITUTIONAL': CONGRESS INVOKES NEW WAR POWERS RESOLUTION TO REJECT TRUMP'S STRIKES ON IRAN
Immediately after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution known as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (AUMF). It granted the President exclusive and extraordinary powers to target those groups and nations that he determines "aided the terrorist attacks…or harbored" the perpetrators of 9/11. The stated goal was to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."
One only needs to read the report of the 9/11 Commission to be reminded of Iran’s complicity. For years, the government in Tehran actively aided and abetted attacks on America by offering Al Qaeda terrorists extensive training, intelligence, transit, logistics, weaponry and funding. Some of the terrorists that Iran supported were the very same "future 9/11 hijackers," the report explained.
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, several Al Qaeda leaders fled to neighboring Iran where they were given safe haven. This included Usama bin Laden, who was harbored by the mullahs while he plotted even more attacks against Americans.
On this basis alone, Trump’s tactical military strikes against Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities were legally authorized and constitutionally justified. No advanced consultation or approval by Congress is required. The AUMF carries no expiration date. It has never been repealed, refined or amended. It remains in full force as a delegated power to the President.
Few Democrats complained when President Obama broadly utilized the AUMF on numerous occasions for military operations against Libya, Syria, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and even ISIS. His robust use of the resolution further cemented its legality. All three branches of government, including the judiciary, affirmed its legitimacy and scope.
President Biden invoked the AUMF to justify airstrikes in Iraq against jihadist militias. He defended it as an act of self-defense to protect American lives. He told Congress that his military action was consistent with international law. Most Democrats were mute on the subject.
Now, only because it is Trump who has taken aggressive steps against the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, his politically driven critics are howling. Their hypocrisy should be lost on no one.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., stated with confidence that Trump’s "disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers." Predictably, she pronounced that it is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment."
Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez was referring to the 1973 War Powers Resolution. It is a notification requirement, not a prohibition on a President’s right to exert military action. Indeed, Trump complied by notifying Congress. It is hardly an impeachable offense.
A more reasoned analysis was offered by Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who wrote on X, "As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS. Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I’m grateful for and salute the finest military in the world."
The hysteria of the "no forever wars" crowd will inevitably lurch into a vigorous constitutional debate. However, historical precedence and the consistent use of the AUMF by Trump’s predecessors uphold his decision to neutralize an enemy state that has long vowed the destruction of both Israel and the United States.
Under Article II of the Constitution, the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, is empowered to direct military operations to deter foreign threats to our national security. This has been well established over the course of our republic. A nuclear-armed Iran controlled by a maniacal regime poses the ultimate peril.
Trump had an affirmative duty to act preemptively. David Albright, one of the world’s foremost experts on Iran’s nuclear program, told The Wall Street Journal that Tehran was dangerously close to atomic breakout. Before Saturday night’s strike, he said that Iran "could make enough weapon-grade uranium for 11 nuclear weapons within a month." It is a foregone conclusion that such bombs would be used against Israel, the United States, or both.
Trump’s decision to destroy nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan was not an easy one. But it was bold and absolutely necessary. Simply waiting under exigent circumstances would have been irresponsible, if not reckless. Iran has a long and proven record of lying, cheating, and covering up its development of weapons of mass destruction. Their fanatical leaders cannot be trusted when so much is at stake.
The president should be commended, not condemned, for neutralizing a growing menace. But political enmity in the Age of Trump militates that the party out of power react with impetuous opposition, regardless of the known facts, the law, and the Constitution.
We may never know how many millions of lives have been spared. There will be reprisals, to be sure. But they pale in comparison to the existential risks that were bearing down on America and our closest ally in the Middle East.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
The usual reactionaries will take to the streets to castigate Trump as a "war criminal" deserving of prosecution. Let them. Their formulaic fury is exceeded only by their ignorance.
Trump’s ordered strike was narrow and limited and purposeful. Claims by some that the U.S. will become mired in another foreign quagmire with boots on the ground is overwrought. No such action is merited or even contemplated. Feverish predictions of "World War III" are little more than unhinged rhetoric.
Trump gave Iran every opportunity to peacefully forsake its nuclear ambitions. If Democrats want to impeach him despite the clear language of the AUMF, his inherent constitutional authority, and the sustenance of history, they can certainly try. But I tend to doubt that Americans will look favorably on yet another dubious impeachment.
Doing what is right is not always the easiest thing to do. But doing nothing can be far worse.