It Isn’t a War; It’s Just a Degradation of Iran’s Nuclear Enrichment Capacity, Right?

It Isn’t a “War”; It’s Just a Degradation of Iran’s Nuclear Enrichment Capacity, Right?

“[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water… “ 

ArtI.S8.C11.1 of the US Constitution

Our intelligence confirmed that as of May of 2018, the six nation (UN sponsored) nuclear enrichment containment 2015 treaty with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, was working based on verified inspections. “Among its key terms: Iran agreed to cap uranium enrichment at 3.67% for 15 years, far below the weapons-grade level of 90%, and cut its enriched uranium stockpile from 10,000 kg to 300 kg. It was restricted to using only 5,060 IR-1 centrifuges and barred from conducting enrichment at the underground Fordow facility. The Arak heavy-water reactor was redesigned to prevent weapons-grade plutonium production.

“US President Donald Trump officially exited the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, labelling it a ‘terrible, one-sided deal’ that benefited Iran much more than the US. He argued the agreement was the ‘worst ever’ and ‘defective at its core’ with sunset clauses that would eventually allow Iran to resume enrichment without oversight, and it failed to address ballistic missiles, regional behaviour, or Iran's support for militant proxies.” NDTV World, June 22nd. Just looking at the above chart tracking Iran’s enrichment levels, you can see how shortly after Trump exited the JCPOA, Iran’s accelerated its enrichment output, in significant part by upgrading and expanding its enrichment facilities.

As the above chart illustrates, Iran went on to build a massive output of enriched, weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, far beyond any conceivable peaceful use that Iran could imagine. It was, however, Iran’s way of having a nuclear weapons saber to rattle… without actually having nuclear weapons. Even Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard confirmed, as of June this year, Iran had not yet crossed that bright red line to have genuine nuclear warheads or bombs. “She’s wrong,” said Trump as he shoved Gabbard out of the inner circle advising the President on this issue, instead apparently relying on Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu’s assessment.

A series of US presidential actions led Iran to be a threatening superpower in the region. George W Bush’s elimination of the minority Sunni dictatorship of Iraq, substituting a majority rule Shiite government (with a natural bond with Shiite Iraq), gave Iran contiguous control by her and her allies (Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon), of land all the way to the Mediterranean. Add Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen, and you have the basis for Iran’s dominance over the Islamic nations in the region. Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA lifted the last restraint on Iran’s nuclear program. Iran resumed a full enrichment program and soon overplayed its hand. Without those two strategic errors by Bush and Trump, that massive US air assault would never have been needed.

Outside of Israel, most world powers either remained silent or condemned the American attack. Many reassured the US that they were in support behind the scenes but could not say so publicly. Inside the United States, political divisions ripened, some rotting and falling to the ground. Trump’s campaign pledges, one by one, were winding up in the trash heap of failure. Domestic prices have soared – nothing compared to what the price of gasoline will become based on this conflict – Ukraine and Russia, Hamas and Israel, remain in seemingly unending conflict with massive casualties, that that “America First” pledge not to involve the US in foreign wars ended abruptly and violently with the air attack Iran.

Whether because he violated these major pledges or, as many Democrats and a few Republicans believe, the President usurped Congress’ right to declare war (see above quote) and violated the “War Powers Act, law passed by the U.S. Congress on November 7, 1973, over the veto of Pres. Richard Nixon. The joint measure was called the War Powers Resolution, though the title of the Senate-approved bill, War Powers Act, became widely used… The act sought to restrain the president’s ability to commit U.S. forces overseas by requiring the executive branch to consult with and report to Congress before involving U.S. forces in foreign hostilities. Widely considered a measure for preventing ‘future Vietnams,’ it was nonetheless generally resisted or ignored by subsequent presidents, many of whom regarded it as an unconstitutional usurpation of their executive authority. Since the passage of this joint resolution, presidents have tended to take actions that have been “consistent with” rather than “pursuant to” the provisions of the act—in some cases, seeking congressional approval for military action without invoking the law itself. Members of Congress have complained that they have not been given timely notification of or sufficient details regarding some military engagements. Some legislators have gone to court (unsuccessfully) to seek adjudication of what they believe to have been violations of the act. Increasingly, presidents have identified resolutions taken by the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as justification for military intervention.” Britannica.

Trump notified Republican members of Congress in advance… but no Democrats. The United States launched its attack on Iran unilaterally without any involvement of our traditional allies (except Israel, of course). The United States has never so purposefully isolated itself so deeply since the 1920s and early 1930s. Trump’s willingness to walk away from treaty commitments led Iran’s Foreign Minister to assert: “I do not know how much room is left for diplomacy.” Iran’s Parliament seems to have authorized a shutdown of the Strain of Hormuz, which would cut off access to the Suez Canal, and while not a direct attack on the US, it would make global prices soar. Approximately 12% of global trade and 30% of global container traffic pass through the Suez Canal, annually transporting over $1 trillion worth of goods. The economic consequences of making that canal inaccessible would be staggering. Additionally, on June 22nd, an advisory from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned of a "heightened threat environment in the United States" following overnight U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Cyber attacks were expected to rise dramatically as well… as well as attacks on our troops in the area.

I’m Peter Dekom, and here’s the bottom line on Trump’s unilateral strikes on Iran: the deteriorated situation that gave rise to the resumption of Iran’s enrichment program was of Trump’s making, the attacks may have produced a desirable result, but the decision by Trump, and Trump alone, to attack, has elevated our constitutional crisis to a new and unsustainable level.