It’s a leadership issue.
I generally don’t want to wander into policy debates unless there is a clear ethical component. Competence. Honesty. Responsibility. Results, as we discuss here so often, are usually the result of moral luck. All we can do, in situations involving high-level leadership decision-making, is evaluate what the basis of the decision was, and the process under which it was made. What happens after that is moral luck, chaos, essentially. As an ethicist, I try not to base my analysis on whether I agree with the decision or not from a policy or pragmatic perspective.
In military and foreign policy decisions, the absence of clear ethical standards are especially rife. There are some who regard any military action at all except in reaction to an attack on the U.S. as unethical, and sometimes not even in that circumstance. They are absolutists: war is wrong, killing is wrong, “think of the children,” and that’s all there is to it. Such people are useless except as necessary reminders that Sherman was right.
President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities is a matter of leadership, not ethics. Leaders lead, and are willing to make tough, often risky, decisions. The U.S. Presidency requires leadership, and strong leadership is not only preferable to weak leadership, it is what the majority of Americans has traditionally preferred. The Constitution clearly shows the Founders’ preference for a strong executive branch, particularly in the area of national defense. Yesterday, the President took advantage of the Constitution’s general approval of executive leadership when national security is involved.
Interestingly, the New York Times this morning published a remarkably fair and non-hysterical, non-Trump Deranged analysis of last night’s action against Iran. [That’s a gift link.] Then Times readers all displayed their biases in the comments, often expressing certainty on what will happen. Like…
- “Now that his military parade flopped, Trump seemed desperate for another occasion to show the world how powerful the US military is. He seems to be so obsessed with that idea that he risks alienating his America First MAGA base by attacking Iran, which is pretty much the opposite of staying away from foreign conflicts.” [Me: Trump-haters can’t imagine him making any decision based on doing the job rather than political calculations. Oh…and the parade didn’t “flop.”]
- “So we decide what war is. Spreading clouds of nuclear material and targeting political leaders is not war… We could be in for it now.” [Me: Assuming Presidential fear of “being in for it” is how Russia felt secure invading the Crimea and Ukraine, not to mention putting missiles in Cuba all those years ago.]
- “If Trump believes this is one and done, he’s sadly mistaken. In fact, the opposite will happen. If the current Iranian government remains in power, they will pursue atomic capability all the more zealously, burying the processing sites even deeper. They will also mine the Straits of Hormuz, choking off oil supplies and requiring US naval forces’ involvement.” [Me: Decision-makers should always consider the worst case scenario, but the WCS cannot be the default basis for Presidential decision-making, or passivity and abdication of authority will be the result. The fear of the WCS has driven the foreign policy decisions of the weakest Democratic Presidents over the past 50 years: Carter, Obama, and Biden.]
- “Whether it was the right decision for Trump to launch America head first into this conflict, remains to be seen.” [Me: Ugh. Consequentialism! If the decision works out, it was a good one, if not, it was a mistake. Moron.]
- “…With one ill-advised impulsive act, no doubt hatched by his unprofessional, rash cheerleaders ignoring the intelligence reports, Trump creates chaos, both at home and abroad.” [Me: This is from someone who refuses to accept the possibility that Trump receives competent advice and is capable of making a well-considered decision.]
- “Just as in 1953, this is a military intervention based on a pack of half-truths, exaggerations, self-serving justifications, pretextual reasoning, and outright lies, pedaled by a foreign government that has inveigled America to do dangerous and dirty deeds that it doesn’t have the military means to do itself.” [Me: That is the progressive anti-Israel bias coming out. Part of learning the lessons of history is also understanding that, for example, 1953 isn’t 2025.]
- “Maybe this will work. Who knows? But historical precedent says the odds are against it.” [Me: I’ll spare you all of the other decisions made by American Presidents when historical precedent said the odds were against them. The Founders’ decision to defy Great Britain was the example that set the template.]
- “Meanwhile, at a time when we are all nice and distracted, whose pocket is Trump picking this time? Trump never does anything – including bombing other countries – unless he is somehow benefitting financially.” [Me: Anyone who thinks this way is beyond hope. I gave an amazing number of once-intelligent friends who do think this way.”]
President Trump was elected to lead and make difficult decisions. He did that yesterday. He has the power, and he used it: the members of Congress and hysterics calling the decision “impeachable” are either ignorant or trying to confuse the public. Those who presume to seek leadership positions and succeed in doing so have an ethical obligation to lead.
Ethics Alarms 
Did I miss something?
Last I heard, he was going to make a decision in two weeks.
was that deception?
Did Iran’s refusal to negotiate constitute a rejection of his offer to wait two weeks?
What changed?
-Jut
He very carefully said he’d make the decision WITHIN two weeks. And he was certainly within that threshold.
Consider as well that several days ago the news of a decent-sized squadron of B2 Spirit bombers, along with aerial tankers and a protective group of fighters, was deployed west to Guam. It was all quite public.
And yesterday, those planes all sat on the tarmac in Guam while a second squadron of B2s took off from their home base in the great American midwest, flying east and picking up tankers and fighters along the way. And that’s the group that did the deed.
So in answer to your question: yes, there was deception involved. I’m not military, but I do read enough to know that deception is a vital tool in both combat and competition.
Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin told the network that in more than 15 years of covering the Pentagon, she had never seen operational security as airtight as was this mission’s. Nobody was saying nuthin’ to nobody, which she said was highly unusual.
There IS apparently a leaky point that it would be wise to fix: Pizza Hut has trackers on its online ordering app that tells how busy a local store is when it comes to deliveries. Per a screengrab on X/Twitter, the orders at the store closest to the Pentagon were more than 3X normal yesterday around 4:30 pm. – while the package was in the air, but before it arrived. Whoever posted that screengrab correctly noted “something’s up.”
It’s not the first time recently that has happened – in fact, the same thing happened shortly before Israel made its brilliant decapitation strike on Iran’s top military brass at the start of this.
I thought he was trying to “give peace a chance,” as he seems generally anti-war.
sadly, his deception was probably intended, at least partially, to evade a lawsuit by the left to enjoin him from taking military action.
-Jut
This isn’t the first time he’s released timetables that were a little bit behind reality. In April 2018 he also released a longer timetable before he let the Syrians have it for using chemical warfare against their own population. That’s how you avoid leaks and lull the other side into thinking he’s got time.
It is a huge conflict of interest , insult to the those serving in the reserve and active duty. It is a way to enrich folks on the board of these companies and yes this includes individuals in this administration. And it’s a way to ensure the ONLY certain companies get contract work.
If nothing else, they are no better than any other recruit joining the reserves, or someone active duty. They need to pass all requirements just as all others. So in addition to all the special privileges these elites are receiving , are they to receive the pay of a reserve officer or a active duty person and their family members receive the benefits as well? Hopefully more individuals will study how the CCP took over China. We are going in this direction of our government becoming authoritarian.
https://www.wired.com/story/what-lt-col-boz-and-big-techs-enlisted-execs-will-do-in-the-army/
Jack,
Thanks, the strike not being an ethics issue is what I was trying to communicate last night.
I have been having top of the world discussions with one of my children who is endeavoring to figure out life, the universe and everything… including how to make sense of the recent U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity.
Primarily my goal has been to attempt to provide guidance to discern the subtle distinction between moral, ethical and legal in the context of deeper cultural and geopolitical reality.
Last night we had a conversation until 1 a.m. concerning the recent strike. This conversation verred in the direction of critiquing Presidents. I mentioned to him that I could get him links to top tier analysis covering all of the presidents. However, I have been searching Ethics Alarms for your commentary and rankings of the presidents with no success.
Do you have key words that link together your analysis of the president rankings or a general area where they are collected?
Now the Iranians say they’re going to close the Strait of Hormuz and block 20% of the world’s oil from going out. Oh, I’m quaking in my boots. The Iranian navy has one attack submarine seaworthy (2 more are laid up in refit), one coastal defense sub, about twenty miniature submarines, 7 frigates, 3 corvettes, 15 fast attack boats, and some number of patrol boats. A lot of the larger warships are old, some dating even back to the 1960s, and none of them are over 1,500 tons. The Burke-class destroyers, our current mainstay until the Constellation-class frigates start to arrive, are 7 and 8 times that size, with much more powerful armament. That’s before we even talk airpower, which Iran has very little of left at this point after what there was mostly got destroyed by the Israelis. Oh sure, the Houthis were causing trouble in the Red Sea with missile launchers, but they weren’t trying to cut off the world’s oil supply. Have the Iranians forgotten what happened in 2003 when we sent five aircraft carriers after Saddam? And that’s before the fifth-generation fighters arrive. Do they think Trump, who just hit them where they live, wouldn’t do the same to protect the world’s oil supply?
I think Iran has been almost as lucky as the Turks, who’ve avoided punishment for their misdeeds for over a century by always throwing in with the right side after the disaster of throwing in with the wrong side in World War I and the western powers always having more pressing issues than punishing them. Mossadegh tried to pull an early Allende on the West (stealing private property never goes over well with the owners, and that’s what nationalization and expropriation are) and got ousted by the army, supported by the CIA and MI6. Jimmy Carter stupidly ignored and even fled from the Iranian revolution, in fact he dropped out of sight for 100 days, allowing Khomeini to come to power and you know the rest. After that, Iran thought they were untouchable and became the greatest sponsor of terrorism apart from the Soviet Union. Reagan was busy with the Cold War, Bush the Elder was busy with Iraq trying to conquer Kuwait, Clinton was too busy chasing interns, George W. Bush was busy with the war on terror, and Obama and Biden, well, the less said the better., other than they were more interested in kissing Iran’s ass than kicking it.
The mistake, I think, was sending proxies after Israel in 2023. It backfired in the worst possible way, and they made the mistake of trying to go directly after Israel with missiles and drones, which failed miserably. Netanyahu had had enough of fighting Iranian-sponsored terrorists every time he turned around, and finally decided it was time to go straight for Iran itself, since their missile barrage showed there was little to fear. Trump was not otherwise occupied, saw the chance to end this terror state’s move toward a nuclear weapon and a change of the game in its favor, and took it. Maybe in the 1970s or 80s a relatively crude B-52 bombing raid wouldn’t have done the job, but technology has advanced quite a bit since then.
Iran can squawk all they want, they put themselves in this position. The left can squawk all it wants, it’s not going to change anything. Yes, the US pulled a sneak attack. So what? Decoys are a legitimate stratagem. Yes, the US effectively joined the war on the side of Israel. So what? Surely the Iranians didn’t expect us to back THEM.
There are a few more items than just the failure of the Iranian missile attacks.
One of Iran’s defenses against their being attacked was all of their proxies counter attacking Israel. After Oct 7, Israel has taken them all out. That struck out one more restraint on Israel.
Russia is busy with Ukraine. Russia would have definitely provided more help with Iran. They could have shared weapons. Further, Russia has been buying Iranian weapons, which Iran then didn’t have available for use against Israel.
Finally, we have the fall of Syria. One of the several key components is Russia no longer had the bandwidth to keep up their support of Syria, tying into this point above about Ukraine. But it was more than that, Turkey rushed in and was a key component in the fall of Asad. With no powerful central government, Israel has a clear pathway over Syria to Iran. These operations required refueling fighter jets on the way, and you don’t put tankers over hostile territory. If Asad was still in power, the tankers wouldn’t have been able to do this.
Put all that together, and Israel had an opportunity unlike they ever had before and the likelihood that they ever would going forwards.
“In military and foreign policy decisions, the absence of clear ethical standards are especially rife.”
I disagree. I think it’s very clear ethics standards but there are few of them because between nations, there are no friends there are only shared interests in a very much law-of-the-jungle arrangement.
And thank goodness we don’t hamstring ourselves with a Byzantine set of formal rules for dealing with miscreants. Otherwise we’d be predictable and thus defeat-able.
Some would say we’re already too predictable.
I read the NYT article and was fairly impressed. It was lucid and reasonably fair, and explored some of the actual possibilities of what happens next.
To be sure, my first thought on hearing about the air strikes was “Finally!” But what I am not sure about is whether this one strike is going to be enough. Trump likes quick solutions and there may not be one here. We may have to strike again to finish the job with the bunker busters, which Trump clearly feels won’t be necessary. We’ll have to see.
============
And wow! I don’t know that I have ever read TR’s full speech before, rather than the ‘Man in the Arena” paragraph. It’s impressive and it darn well holds up today just as much as it did in 1910. It also reinforces the idea that Teddy just could not be placed in a pigeonhole. He was a complex man, and he held — and acted on — views that would today be all over the political spectrum. Bully!
One can wonder how he might have handled the war if he had been elected in 1912.
“And wow! I don’t know that I have ever read TR’s full speech before, rather than the ‘Man in the Arena paragraph“
Same here, DG.
“all the good qualities and all the defects of an intense individualism“
Priceless!
PWS