Iran bombing

The Founders Agree: Of Course Operation Epic Fury Is Legal

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Rod Martin is a conservative pundit; he also, unlike most pundits, has actually accomplished things in his life other than producing hot air. He was the founder and CEO of Martin Capital and helped start PayPal, and can justly call himself a futurist and tech entrepreneur. Now he writes a substack when the spirit moves him, and he just authored a marvelous Shut-Up-You-Don’t-Know-What-You’re Talking-About historical review for the Axis knee-jerks and my Trump Deranged Facebook Friends (and, I suspect, yours) who are calling the President’s action in Iran “illegal.”

They should be embarrassed, but won’t be; I am embarrassed. As someone who prides himself on being informed reagarding American Presidential history, I knew Trump’s latest FAFO move was supported by precedent, but only looked as far back as Barack Obama’s administration, more for its ethics estoppel value to all of the President’s current critics who were silent as Obama bombed Libya without Congressional authorization and gleefully droned-to-death American citizens abroad because he deemed them a threat to the Republic.

I’m a moron. There is a much stronger case to be made, indeed an irrefutable one, that President Trump was well within his powers and the boundaries of the Constitution. As I read Martin’s essay, once again, as has been happening frequently of late, the image of my beloved but diabolical Jack Russell Terrier Dickens came to mind, madly shaking something in my face to prove a point. I’m Dickens, and the Trump Deranged are my face.

Martin begins by pointing out that the base of the Iwo Jima Memorial, just a few miles from my home, contains more than a giant iconic statue depicting a critical moment in World War II. It also includes a list of America’s foreign conflicts. “Many are declared wars or battles in them; many are not,” he writes. “But one sticks out in my mind during the current debate over the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s military actions: the French Naval War of 1798-1800, more commonly known as “the Undeclared Naval War with France.”

Pages: 1 2

Iran Attack Aftermath: Update

/ Jack Marshall / 38 Comments

1. You have to give Ann Althouse credit, as annoying as she often is. She lives in Madison, her blog readers once were predictably progressive, but she is relentlessly mocking the Axis’s inability to show the integrity and common sense to admit that President Trump finally taking action against Iran is praiseworthy.

  • Here, she favorably cites Philip Klein in “Donald Trump Wasn’t Bluffing on Iran” (National Review), and notes,
    “From the comments over there: “How Barack Obama must feel now, having tried sucking up to the Ayatollah, then bribing him (as did Biden later), and now finally realizing, after mocking Trump and denouncing Trump and lying about Trump, that the president who will be remembered as being truly consequential, is Trump. Sleep well, President Obama. Trump got him.”
  • Here, she quotes “Fear turns to joy as ordinary Iranians see off Ayatollah Khamenei/There was smoke and a sound. We looked up. Did they kill Khamenei, they asked”
  • Here, she reminds us that Trump-hater Sen. John McCain joked about bombing Iran nearly 20 years ago, wondering when we would “send them an airmail message. ” “Question answered: February 28, 2026,” she writes.
  • Here, she notes that Glenn Greenwald appeals to the authority of Charlie Kirk to condemn the attack, a cheap shot by Greenwald.
  • Here, she salutes (in her own, Ann-ish back-handed way), Sen. John Fetterman for being the only Democrat to openly support the President.
  • Here, she points out how absurd and dishonest the Trump Deranged voices are claiming Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Left’s Epstein files obsession. I would add that if you want a Trump Derangement test, making that argument is as clear a positive for the malady as one could find.
  • Here, she posts a TikTok video in which an Iranian schoolboy declares, “I Love Trump.”
  • Here, she mock comedian Mike Benz, who tweeted that Trump had started WWIII, and then withdrew the dumb comment saying that he didn’t mean that literally but only figuratively because he didn’t know how to describe “what this is.” Ann: If you “don’t know of a 280 character way of describing whatever this is,” there is always the option of saying nothing…”

Meanwhile, her few remaining knee-jerk progressives are largely silent, as are the progressives, troll and non-trolls alike, who frequent Ethics Alarms. I think that is cowardly.

2. Over at MSNOW, the talking heads that routinely attack capitalism are warning that the Iran conflict might adversely affect the stock market.

Pages: 1 2

Do You Have Any Clue Regarding Whether the US Bombing of the Iranian Nuclear Facilities Were Successful or Not? I Don’t.

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I just heard President Trump at his press conference, rambling as only he can, declare that the news outlets claiming his surprise bunker-busters attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not as effective as the U.S. claimed were “losers” and liars. Meanwhile, a CNN article, followed by the New York Times, citing leaked classified documents, and thus unnamed sources of those illegally retrieved materials, announced that “Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say.” Reporters Natasha Bertrand, Katie Bo Lillis, and Zachary Cohen wrote that “the US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by four people briefed on it.” It continued, “The assessment, which has not been previously reported, was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said.”

Continue reading →

The U.S. Bombing of Iran Is Not an Ethics Issue

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

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.

Continue reading →