Just Don't Call It a War
Plus: The Trump administration toys with regime change in Iran, our own constitutional regime takes another hit, a mystery driver joyrides on the National Mall, and more...
We're not at war with Iran. We're merely bombing the country. Iran's nuclear program has been effectively destroyed. We will keep bombing the country if it doesn't give up its nuclear program. We seek peace and diplomacy with Iran. We might have to overthrow Iran's government if it doesn't do exactly as we say or fights back in any way.
The above is only a slightly flippant summary of the rhetoric President Donald Trump and his subordinates are using to sell the war they launched against Iran over the weekend, which began Saturday evening (early Sunday, Iranian time) with a series of strikes on three of the country's nuclear sites.
A "very successful attack," declared Trump in a Truth social post on Saturday, adding that "NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!"
Get your morning news roundup from Liz Wolfe and Reason.
As Reason's Matthew Petti dryly noted over the weekend, "There was peace eight days ago." That was before Israel, and now the U.S., started bombing Iran.
To hear Vice President J.D. Vance tell it, that peace was never shattered because we're not even at war. "We are not at war with Iran. We are at war with Iran's nuclear program," was the veep's go-to line in interviews with reporters on Sunday.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this sentiment at a press conference, saying the weekend's strikes "did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people."
It might strike some as absurd to argue that America is not at war with the country it's bombing, particularly given that our ally Israel is very much striking Iranian troops and Iranian people.
Ridiculous as it sounds, it's not a new idea.
Recall that the Obama administration argued its 2011 aerial bombardment of Libya didn't amount to actual hostilities because U.S. troops weren't put at risk. Therefore, the administration didn't need congressional approval to continue its non-hostile bombing campaign.
Given that Congress wasn't consulted about Trump's weekend strikes on Iran either (more on that in a bit), the administration's "we're not at war" insistences allow it to pretend it's not completely ignoring the Constitution.
Limited forever war. Having started a war with Iran, the Trump administration is now trying to have its yellowcake and bomb it too.
It wants to tell a war-skeptical public that its war aims are limited and have basically already been achieved. It also wants to threaten Iran with limitless death and destruction if it doesn't effectively just roll over.
This is how Hegseth can say "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated," while U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio can say that "if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that."
Trump himself raised the potential for regime change, saying in a Sunday Truth Social post that "if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be Regime change???"
Indeed, while Iran's nuclear sites have been badly damaged, The New York Times is reporting that initial intelligence assessments show that they remain at least partially intact. Multiple outlets are also reporting that the Iranians appear to have removed equipment from the targeted nuclear facilities before they were bombed.
Vance seemed to concede to ABC's Jonathan Karl that Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium that would be needed to build a bomb survived the attacks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the same.
For all the victory dancing, there are still plenty of Iranian nuclear targets that might qualify for future strikes.
"The U.S. could find itself in a long-term game of whack-a-mole to stop a dispersed Iranian nuclear program," writes Petti.
Over at Unheard, Sohrab Ahmari, Arta Moeini, and Dan Caldwell write that avoiding a wider U.S.-Iranian war "depends on precision, discipline, escalation management, and a willingness to take diplomatic off-ramps that may appear unsatisfying at first."
These are "traits not often associated with wars that begin amid great fanfare and inflated expectations," they pessimistically note.
When asked by Karl what he'd say to people worried about a protracted war with Iran, Vance said, "How do you achieve long-term peace? How do you prevent the spiraling Middle East conflict? Is it through overwhelming military power targeted to an American objective, or is it by sort of walking yourself into these long-term protracted military conflicts?"
According to the vice president, this is a binary and Trump is choosing the former option. It's just as likely the president is choosing both options: "targeted" force that begets a protracted conflict.
Remembering the Constitution. Under the old U.S. Constitution, which is still technically in effect, Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war.
The 1973 War Powers Act attempted to affirm this principle by laying out three circumstances when the president could insert military forces into hostilities: (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
As Reason's Eric Boehm wrote over the weekend, none of these conditions cover Trump's Iran strikes:
The first two options provided by the law are clearly not involved here, as Congress did not declare war against Iran and did not pass an authorization for the use of military force (as was done to allow the invasion of Iraq in 2002).
The third circumstance also does not apply to Trump's attack on Iran, which was not carried out in response to an attack on American troops and did not respond to a crisis threatening American soil.
Nevertheless, Republican Congressional leaders have cheered on Trump's unconstitutional attack on Iran. Most rank-and-file Republicans have offered support as well, with a few notable exceptions like Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who got roasted by Trump on Truth Social for his trouble.
.@realDonaldTrump declared so much War on me today it should require an Act of Congress. #sassywithmassie pic.twitter.com/ZrMiIKcAxu
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 23, 2025
Congressional Democrats have, to their credit, vocally condemned Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) has even said it's grounds for impeachment.
That's all well and good. The fact that opposition to Trump's Iran strike is (mostly) along partisan lines is one more indicator that Congress as a whole is uninterested in safeguarding its own institutional prerogatives over declaring war and peace.
Scenes from D.C.: Speaking of running over Congress, a viral video this Saturday shows a black SUV driving at high speeds on the National Mall. Bystander Ferdous Al-Faruque captured the bizarre scene on video.
On Saturday night, a driver was caught on video speeding an SUV across the grass on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. pic.twitter.com/K7z2fGLLzx
— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) June 23, 2025
No injuries were reported from the incident. Police say they arrested the unnamed driver shortly after he drove off the mall.
Quick Links
- The Senate is getting ready to vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill.
- A judge ruled Sunday that the Trump administration can't jail Kilmar Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on immigrant smuggling charges, reports Politico.
- Back it up
A historic picture:
Ships set to cross the Strait of Hormuz make a 180 degree U-Turn at ~9:15 AM ET this morning.
This was just minutes after Iran's parliament approved closing the Strait.
Wild times. https://t.co/bi9jeQvw98 pic.twitter.com/X9FxuywyQy
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) June 22, 2025
- Tesla's robotaxi service launches in Austin, Texas.
The @Tesla_AI robotaxi launch begins in Austin this afternoon with customers paying a $4.20 flat fee!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 22, 2025
- FedEx founder Fred Smith has died.
- Are home appliances getting more flimsy? Maybe just a little bit.
