The questions that remain on Iran

All's well that ends well?

Not exactly.

First of all, it's not clear what "all" exactly means. Was Iran's nuclear capacity really eliminated? What capacity did they actually have? We don't seem to have a consensus within the administration on even the most basic questions, or they wouldn't be pushing back so hard against those who claim that Trump's rhetoric was overblown, which is what Marco Rubio was doing today. Intelligence reviews, we are told, suggest otherwise.

Really, who does know?

Not Congress, if they're still waiting for the briefings that should have accompanied the attacks. We bombed an adversary's nuclear facilities. How is that not an act of war?

What is he doing out there on his own, like the Lone Ranger? Ever heard of separation of powers? Wondered who has the power to make war?

Thank God, and the brave men and women of the military, that they were able to complete their missions successfully. So far. Just consider all the things that could have gone wrong, and still could.

But what about the part -- in the Constitution and the statutory law -- requiring the president to consult with Congress and Congress to authorize a declaration of war?

The classified congressional briefings that were supposed to be held early last week were deferred until Thursday and Friday. Democrats condemned the delay. No one else seemed to notice.

There was much to discuss about whether or not the United States should enter the war with Iran. That debate should have been held. Wars that are not supported by a broad consensus of Americans don't tend to go well. There was a lively debate going on, especially in the Republican Party. Donald Trump almost seemed to be encouraging it when he announced that he would be deciding in two weeks. Then he ended all discussion by declaring unilateral victory and a ceasefire.

Is this how wars of the future will be fought? What about the ones that aren't won in days? Will this one really be?

This is said to be Benjamin Netanyahu's political vindication. Can that really be true? Shouldn't that alone be reason for caution?

The example Trump has set here of how to conduct foreign policy is so dangerous that it almost makes it seem more miraculous that it worked. And then you have to wonder if it did, if it will also detract attention away from the most regressive tax bill of our lifetimes, and if that was, indeed, part of the point.

Trump's big, beautiful bill is one that Republicans will pay for in years to come. It's one of those defining votes that should show Americans where their representatives stand on what is always a voting question: Whose side are you on? How do you get people on the side of giving all the breaks to the wealthy few, and throwing old, sick people and children off the health care rolls?

I know they're wizards and all, but how do you do the images for that one? Bombs away beats it any day. As long as Republicans in Congress remain cowed by the king, as they are relieved to be, at least for now, he will carry the day.

© 2025, Creators