No matter what one thinks about how we got here and Trump’s equivocations about the war, the nation cannot tolerate Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
President Trump’s dereliction in failing to prepare the nation for war with Iran, and his inconstancy about the war’s objectives — and even regarding whether it is, in fact, a war and whether it is, in fact, ongoing — have predictably had harmful effects. It’s past time for Congress to assert its constitutional power and authorize force, at least to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. No matter what one thinks of how we got here, Iran cannot be allowed to annex a vital global trade route whose closure is hurting Americans.
Because of the administration’s poor messaging, the real good done by American combat operations has been obscured: the significant setbacks to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions and ballistic missile capabilities, the virtual destruction of its navy and air defenses, and the infliction of economic distress that undermines its capacity to abet its jihadist proxies. To repeat what I’ve said before, politically speaking, a security win can look and feel like a loss if Iran appears to hold the whip hand.
The Strait of Hormuz was open to free international trade on February 28 and, as a result of the war, Iran has closed it. Because Trump failed the basic duty of communicating the national security risks, the American people did not feel a threat from Iran. Now, however, they now feel financial pain inflicted by Iran in what they perceive as a war Trump gratuitously started. The most visible, tangible outcome of the war, as far as most Americans are concerned, is that Iran now dominates the strait. That’s politically catastrophic.
Moreover, it happened because our transactional president, who figures everyone has a price, failed to understand how rabidly a revolutionary Shiite sharia supremacist regime would fight for its own survival. He failed, therefore, to apprehend the high probability that the regime would (a) close the strait, (b) attack its Sunni Islamic neighbors that align with the U.S. and host our military bases, and (c) otherwise escalate the conflict to degrees out of proportion with his own overconfident assumptions.
Among the most discreditable fallout is the administration’s gamesmanship regarding the state of the war.
What has happened on the ground is simple and obvious. On March 1, the president started a war (in alliance with Israel but, as a matter of U.S. constitutional law, unilaterally). The war has never ceased; as I addressed a few days back (here and here), even if exchanges of fire had completely stopped (and they haven’t), the dueling blockades (Iran against the strait, the U.S. against Iranian ports) are continuing acts of war. But having miscalculated the enemy’s resolve, and with his approval ratings sinking to new lows, Trump is unwilling to pay the political price that achieving his stated objectives would cost — objectives that now must include reopening the strait, which would require long-term, risky combat operations if it’s to be done on our terms rather than Iran’s. Hence, the president is trying to get out of what he started while making it look like he is not withdrawing in failure.
Trump and his minions thus indulge the fallacy that reality can be altered by the words used to describe it. They pretend the war is not a “war” by refusing to call it that, in an effort to dodge Congress’s war powers (and despite having purported to relabel the Defense Department the Department of War to stress its principal mission, and despite Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth relentless prattle about U.S. warfighters whose mission is to maximize lethality). Although the single war has never stopped since it started, administration officials rhetorically frame it as if it were two distinct events: “Operation Epic Fury,” which we’re supposed to see as having been concluded victoriously, and “Project Freedom,” a supposedly separate defensive mission to clarify that the closed strait is really open — at least until the president suspended the mission within 24 hours of commencing it.
This dizzying prestidigitation is not done idly. It is intended to disguise the fact that the president is persisting in the use of military force he began on March 1 even though the 1973 War Powers Act requires congressional authorization, or the withdrawal of forces, after 60 days (i.e., Congress is to believe that Epic Fury ended before the deadline, and needn’t concern itself with the “new” Project Freedom).
Congress should call an end to this indecorous sleight of hand by authorizing the use of force against Iran — at the very least, such force as is necessary to reopen the strait and restore freedom of passage in international waters.
This should not be hard for the Republican majority, which wants to be seen as backing the president and being tough on Iran. Democrats should support it because it is essential to national security and economic stability. The partisan political temptation, of course, is to let Trump keep flailing away with inconsistent, incoherent justifications for an unpopular war. Yet, no matter how we got to this point, the nation cannot afford to allow Iran, in implacable American enemy, to control a vital international waterway as if it were sovereign Iranian territory. The domino effect would be to encourage other rogue actors to put a stranglehold on other waterways that are critical to international trade and defense. That would intolerably imperil freedom of the seas and heighten the risk to our Navy and other forces.
Adults in Congress can support national security without endorsing what the president has done to make that support necessary. And for Democrats who say (implausibly, in my view) that Iran should be dealt with by negotiations rather than force, a congressional authorization of force to open the strait, even amid Trump’s unpopularity, would convey seriousness of purpose to the Iranian regime and strengthen the hands of U.S. negotiators to try to get a better deal. The public has already made up its mind about the president’s performance, but it might reward congressional statesmanship in dealing with what, undeniably, is a security challenge from a committed American enemy.
Perhaps most importantly, Congress would be putting down a marker that the Constitution requires its authorization for the use of military force. And let’s face it: Congress is not going to vote against the deployment of our forces; and it is going to fund military operations, as long as Iran has de facto closed the strait. That being the case, it’s best to affirmatively authorize the use of force and put an end to the administration’s equivocations about the war, which are only helping Iran.