Did Trump violate the Constitution and US intelligence on Iran?

These absurd notions come from a misreading of the Constitution and a misrepresentation of public intelligence estimates. Here's how...

There is a bizarre conversation taking place in America and Europe.

Activists and even mainstream journalists are compulsively repeating two widespread but incorrect myths: 1. that according to American intelligence agencies, Iran is not attempting to produce a nuclear weapon, and 2. that President Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities early yesterday morning violates the United States Constitution.

Both assertions are wrong.

Photo: by whitehouse.gov

Does America’s strike on Iran violate the U.S. Constitution?

In a word: no.

This mistaken notion comes from a misreading of Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution which gives Congress the exclusive power to “declare war.” However, there is a Constitutional tension with Article II Section 2 which designates the President as “Commander in Chief” with the authority to carry out military actions.

The last time Congress “declared war” was World War II. Since then, the United States has fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Kosovo, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, and the list goes on and on. None of these military actions involved an official declaration of war, and despite about half a dozen lawsuits, the Supreme Court has never ruled against Presidential authority in this area, including in the “Prize” Cases of 1862 to 1863, and many similar cases thereafter.

This is not a personal opinion, but the official position of the Supreme Court of the United States and about 85 years of American history.

Did U.S. intelligence conclude that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon?

In a word: no.

The widespread misunderstanding stems from testimony by America’s DNI (Director of National Intelligence) Tulsi Gabbard, speaking before Congress on March 25, where she stated, "The IC [intelligence community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.” Yet on June 21 DNI Gabbard released the following clarification on X: 

"The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division. America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can’t happen, and I agree."

Furthermore:

• President Trump stated on June 17 that Iran was “very close" to having a nuclear weapon, and White House spokesperson Caroline Leavitt stated in a briefing on June 19, "Let's be very clear, Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon…all they need is a decision from the supreme leader to do that,” adding that Iran could have a nuclear weapon, “within a couple of weeks.”

• Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence indicated (prior to yesterday’s strike) that Iran was moving quickly toward the ability to develop a nuclear bomb. In addition, it is well known that Iran has already built out tremendous capacity to deliver such a bomb through its ballistic missile program - which is targeting Israeli civilians even as I write these words. (I just returned from the bomb shelter minutes ago.)

• Just hours before Israel’s initial strike on June 13, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the United Nations body responsible for nuclear inspections, officially declared Iran to be in breach of the NPT: the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

• Finally, Iranian officials continue to scream “Death to America” in the halls of their parliament, and on the streets: essentially a national mantra.

The absurd notion that Iran does not pose a potential nuclear threat is at best a gross misinterpretation of DNI Gabbard’s testimony to Congress last March, and is contradicted by the White House, Israeli and American intelligence, and also by Gabbard herself. 

Consider this analogy: an assailant constructs a bullet, assembles a gun, loads the bullet into gun and announces that he or she wants to kill you. At what point are you permitted to conclude that you might be in danger? Does your assailant have to actually announce that he or she is pulling the trigger before you may act?

• In this case, Iran has enriched large stocks of uranium far beyond civilian levels - enough for 10 nuclear warheads according to United Nations inspectors, and was within 15 days of developing a warhead according to Israeli intelligence.

  That’s the bullet.

• Iran has developed a massive ballistic missile program that can deliver a nuclear payload, and is currently firing large conventional explosives at Israeli civilians.

  That’s the gun.

• “Death to Israel, Death to America” is part of the Iranian regime’s very identity and indeed, the regime has killed hundreds of American servicemen and women, as well as thousands of Israelis.

  That’s the declaration that Iran wants to kill you.

This is the danger that Israel, the United States, and indeed the entire world were facing before yesterday morning. The world is already a safer place due to Israel’s decision to tackle Iran’s nuclear capability, and America’s decision to join its unique capabilities to this effort.