The attack on Iran has put a clear question front and center for this country and our allies around the world: Given Iran’s long and bloody history of support for terrorism and its nuclear weapons obsession, which poses an existential threat not just to the region but to the world, is military action by the United States justified? The answer is clearly yes. The regime’s nearly 50-year record of mass killings of civilians, both externally and internally, is indisputable. Their support of Hamas made Oct. 7, 2023, a reality. In recent weeks, the Iranian government, with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the helm, murdered tens of thousands of its own people. In the past few days we have seen additional evidence of the security and safety threat that Iran poses to all nations. They directed missiles at Cyprus. A drone was fired at a French naval port in Abu Dhabi, as well as missiles aimed at hotels and airports in a number of Arab countries. There is no minimizing the weapons Iran will employ to further their lethal objectives from its extensive missile arsenal to deadly drones. Fortunately for the world, nuclear weapons are not among them — yet. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote last April, “The intelligence is clear and the conclusion unavoidable: An Iran armed with nuclear weapons would pose an existential threat not only to our allies in the Middle East but to global security as we know it.” There is no doubt that Iran, despite the destruction of a significant portion of its nuclear program last June, is intent on not only getting a nuclear weapon but also developing the technology to deliver it far beyond the region. The case for U.S. action against Iran is one easily made, beginning with the 1979 takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran and the 66 American hostages held for 444 days. In 1983, Iran’s proxies bombed the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American servicemembers. Over eight years in Iraq, militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops. Forty-six Americans died and 12 were taken hostage in the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in Israel. Iran’s unwillingness to lay down arms means U.S. and Israeli military efforts will continue at least for the near term, which gets back to the original question as to Trump’s authority to begin hostilities in Iran. It’s no surprise that some in Congress denounced the operation, calling for an immediate War Powers Resolution vote. What they ignore is the fact that, under the resolution, a president has 60 days to deploy troops into hostile situations before needing congressional approval and has another 30-day withdrawal period. They also seem to have forgotten that most recent presidents have taken military action without prior “War Powers” approval from Congress. Some presidents have pushed the boundaries of the law. Former President Bill Clinton’s military action in Kosovo went several weeks beyond the 60 days — but, in the end, he officially removed military forces prior to the end of the additional 30-day withdrawal deadline. Trump, like those presidents before him, must operate within the parameters of the War Powers Resolution, and so far he has. As the act requires, congressional leaders were briefed in advance about Operation Epic Fury. So, it’s pretty straightforward. As commander in chief, Trump has the authority to undertake military operations against Iran. What isn’t as clear is what happens once the hostilities stop for Iran, for the U.S. and its allies and for its enemies. How a new Iranian government will form and by whom is now the operative question. As we have seen in places from Iraq to Afghanistan to Venezuela, this is a very complicated and difficult process that in some cases has not turned out well. While the United States can be helpful, ultimately, the responsibility for Iran’s future will be in the hands of Iranians. For the world, if the United States and Israel achieve the end of the Khamenei regime, it will have huge implications. It is hard to overstate the importance of removing the serious nuclear threat against the West that Iran has posed for decades. But the demilitarization of Iran has broader implications: for the war in Ukraine, where Russians have depended on Iranian drones to support their efforts; for China, its dependence on Iranian oil and its long game of global economic and military dominance; for the United States, the possibility of a more peaceful Middle East, the normalization of relations between the Arab states and Israel, and the absence of an existential nuclear threat. Iran’s ballistic missile program has the ability to reach far beyond the Middle East, and while their missiles may not be as accurate as ours, how accurate does a nuclear warhead have to be to inflict massive damage? It’s also important to remember the warning of Iranian human rights activist Marjan Keypour Greenblatt that “Iran’s nuclear program is not simply about energy or military deterrence — it is a tool for advancing a revolutionary ideology.” Stopping the spread of this kind of violent extremism that threatens the U.S. homeland has begun with the end of Khamenei and his terrorist regime. These are critical rationales for why what we have been facing with Iran is directly related to the safety and security of all Americans. Hopefully, thanks to the remarkable men and women of the U.S. military, we are now safer. The domestic political implications of Operation Epic Fury await its conclusion. Eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat is an objective that Republicans supported during Operation Midnight Hammer and most support now. Given Trump’s campaign promise to avoid endless wars, his MAGA supporters, however, may want a better explanation for his decision. To date, most Democrats have been very critical of Trump’s decision, putting them in an awkward position given their decision to block a Senate vote on Department of Homeland Security funding with the threat of terrorist retaliation a major concern. The outcome of Epic Fury will be an important issue for the electorate this fall. While the public wants a nuclear-free Iran, early polling shows Trump needs to convince a skeptical electorate that his Iran intervention is the right path. If it goes well, it may improve Trump’s standing. But the electorate continues to have significant economic concerns over the cost of living — still the issue that will likely decide how they vote. David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich. He advises Fortune 100 companies, foundations and nonprofit organizations on strategic planning and public policy issues, as well as serving as an election analyst for CBS News.
