A Word of Caution to President Trump Regarding Iran

When it comes to Iran, Donald Trump is best symbolized by the Roman god Janus… most famously depicted with two faces, one looking to the past and the other to the future, symbolizing his role as the guardian of change and time. However, in Trump’s case, the dual-faced imagery represents the reality that Trump is taking both sides of the issue. With one face, he insists that he wants a deal with Iran to eliminate any chance that Iran will build a nuke. With the other face, he bombastically threatens to bomb Iran. That may have been an effective negotiating tactic in the world of New York real estate deals, but in the realm of foreign policy it is counterproductive.

President Trump hinted on Sunday that a deal with Iran is at hand. I hope so. The Jerusalem Post reports:

US President Donald Trump warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against taking steps that could harm nuclear deal negotiations between the US and Iran in a phone call last week, a senior White House official and another source familiar with the details said on Tuesday.

Trump’s message to Netanyahu was that “this is not the time to escalate the situation while he is trying to resolve the issues.”

Trump and other senior US officials have expressed increasing concern in private talks that Netanyahu might order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities or take other actions that could sabotage diplomatic efforts, said the senior White House official. . . .

According to the senior White House official, Trump told Netanyahu that he wants to reach a diplomatic solution with Iran and “does not want anything to interfere with that.”

The official said Trump’s message to Netanyahu was that “this is not the time to escalate the situation while he is trying to resolve the issues.”

Trump emphasized to Netanyahu that “the second option is still on the table,” but he prefers to first see if a diplomatic solution can be reached.

The deciding issue is whether or not Iran will eliminate its uranium enrichment program, even low-level for peaceful uses, or insist on maintaining the capacity to enrich uranium. Iran’s position on this is firm… it will not eliminate its ability to enrich uranium at the 3.6% level. That puts the onus on Trump… will he accept that deal or not. If Trump refuses to budge, then that likely means he will pursue a military option.

It looks like a military option is on the table, despite the US withdrawal of the carrier strike group from the Red Sea in early May. Since May 7, 2025, the U.S. military has deployed multiple aircraft to Diego Garcia, including B-52 bombers and F-15 fighter jets. These deployments are touted as a show of force to provide protection for the base amid rising regional tensions. I believe their primary mission is to attack Iran in the event that Trump decides the negotiation track has failed.

This raises a second, critical question… Will Trump seek Congressional approval for an attack on Iran? Since the US debacle in Vietnam, most Presidents have ordered attacks on other countries without first seeking the blessing of Congress via a formal vote. While Trump and his team may be inclined to argue that the threat posed by Iran is so great and so urgent that attacking without the blessing of the House and the Senate is a legitimate use of force.

If Trump decides to forego Congressional approval of this misadventure, he runs the risk of being saddled with blame if the attack on Iran results in a disaster for the US and Israel. While I think attacking Iran is an insane move, I cannot dismiss the possibility that Trump is planning to do so. If he had the blessing of Congress, then he alone will not own the debacle if the attack fails to achieve the US and Israeli objectives, and is subsequently accompanied by devastating Iranian strikes on Israel and US military bases in the Persian Gulf. Congress will be on the hook as well.

I want to remind you of the excellent piece by the Frontierman on the Constitution — i.e., The Constitution Is Dead. Long Live the Constitution! His commentary regarding Presidential decisions to employ military force is quite salient to the current decision facing Trump:

The clearest textual expression of congressional supremacy in military affairs is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, which states: “The Congress shall have Power… To declare War.” The Framers intentionally placed this power in the hands of the legislative branch, ensuring that the people’s representatives—not a solitary executive—would decide whether to commit the nation to war.

Yet since the mid-20th century, Presidents have ignored this limit repeatedly. In 1950, President Harry Truman deployed US troops to Korea under the guise of a United Nations “police action,” despite never seeking a declaration of war from Congress. In the 1960s, President Lyndon B. Johnson escalated the Vietnam War based on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, a vague and open-ended congressional measure that allowed the use of force without a formal war declaration.

The list of unauthorized wars only grows more grotesque with time. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada with virtually no consultation with Congress. In 1999, President Bill Clinton ordered a 78-day NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo, ignoring Congress after it failed to approve the use of force.

President Barack Obama launched the 2011 air war in Libya without congressional approval. In 2014, Obama began a sustained bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria against ISIS under the absurd pretext that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—passed to go after al-Qaeda—applied to a terrorist group that didn’t even exist at the time.

President Donald Trump ordered missile strikes against Syrian government targets in 2017-2018, bypassing Congress entirely. Until recently, Trump continued and deepened US involvement in the Yemen war, even vetoing bipartisan efforts in Congress to end US support.

These precedents have allowed the Executive to wage war at will, hollowing out Article I’s grant of war powers and centralizing deadly authority in the presidency. The result is a de facto imperial presidency, where accountability to Congress and the people has all but vanished, and where violence abroad is unleashed by unilateral presidential decree, not democratic consent. These guardrails have not merely eroded—they have collapsed under the weight of decades of bipartisan abuse, rendering the constitutional checks on waging wars non-existent in practice.

If given the chance to advise President Trump, I would ask him to read this preceding passage and answer the question: Do you believe in the Constitution?

Shifting gears to the war in Ukraine, Judge Napolitano and I discussed Trump’s condemnation of Vladimir Putin and the implications of this harsh commentary for the future of US and Russian relations: