The outcome will determine the wisdom of attacking Iran

So was bombing Iran the right thing, or the wrong thing?

I’ve waited a few days because I wanted to think about it, to answer the questions tumbling through my mind, like clothes in a dryer.

They still aren’t answered, but before I get to them, let me present a salient fact: Although circumstances were different in each case, several  Presidents have bombed (or attacked with missiles) foreign countries without first receiving congressional approval. 

Without getting into the weeds, Bill Clinton bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. Barack Obama bombed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria. Joe Biden struck Iraq and Syria. In his first term, Donald J. Trump hit Syria. (George W. Bush struck Iraq, but he did have congressional authorization.)

I offer these facts not to excuse Trump, but to illustrate his action was not unusual, and did not lead to impeachment for other aggressive presidents.

Having done it without congressional approval, was it justified under international law?

Probably not, which is also true of the other cases I mentioned. Obama talked about “moral justification” for some of his actions.

What I am trying to do is filter out the TDS and view his actions in context. We should talk about principles, not personalities.

Honestly, emotionally, I am glad Trump did it.

But I try to not base my public opinions on emotion. I prefer facts.

The fact is Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and, in fact, is indirectly (through proxies it funds) responsible for many American deaths. 

Does that give the U.S. the right to strike Iran? I don’t know.

Will Iran retaliate?

Almost certainly. By noon on Monday, apparently it has not. When it does, I hope it will be modest, because if it is massive, I have no doubt Trump will respond massively. He likes playing general and already has promised “tragedy” for Iran, and on this I believe him.

He has shed the Trump Always Chickens Out (TACO) meme.

My wish would be for a diplomatic settlement.

It should be easy.

Oil-rich Iran says it has no interest in developing a nuclear weapon. It says it is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes only, for electric power. How could you even think other of a country as lovable as Iran? they seem to say. 

Then why do it 300 feet underground?

Iran is a proven liar when it comes to nukes. As PBS anchor Amna Nawaz reported, “the U.N. nuclear watchdog recently said Iran was flouting an agreement with the agency and hiding some of its nuclear activities.”

Let me ask you something: If you were Iran, wouldn’t you want nuclear weapons? If for nothing else, than to protect yourself against the infidel United States, and the “Zionest entity” of Israel?

Of course you would.

From another angle, Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes and within months he was dead. Ukraine gave up its nukes and was attacked by Russia — twice.

The lesson here is your enemies are far less likely to eff with you if you are nuked up.

So, rationally, no matter how they deny it, Iran wants to go nuclear. 

If they don’t, all they have to do is agree to intrusive inspections and it’s all over. But they have never agreed to immediate, unannounced inspections anywhere. Ask yourself why.

I’ll wait.

About retaliation. The experts tell me they could activate terror cells we believe they have planted in this country. They can’t reach our mainland with their missiles, but they can reach our ground forces in the Mideast, and our naval resources in the Mediterranean, Red and Arabian seas. They could mine or close the heavily trafficked Strait of Hormuz.

That last could fall heavily on the world economy, and would make Iran fresh enemies.

Attacks on our forces would be easy, but result in massive damage to Iran.

The terror cells, accompanied by cyber attacks, seem the most likely.

Interestingly, Arab states have expressed “concern” over the American attack, but have not condemned it. 

Why? The Arab world (Iran is not Arab)  is Sunni Muslim, who pretty much detest Shia Muslim Iran, which wants hegemony over the area, which it would have with atomic weapons.

If it were to achieve them, Saudi Arabia, at least, would want them, too. Figure on Egypt wanting a slice of that pie as well. That would bring proliferation of nukes to an unstable region.

Final question — just how close is Iran to developing a nuclear weapon?

I don’t know.

Many cite Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, saying in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. 

On Friday she accused the media of twisting her words and said Iran “is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months.”

What to believe — Tulsi then, or Tulsi now?

Again, I don’t know.

Remember, the current crisis situation was sparked by Israel’s preventive provocative attack on Iran, believing it was “close” to developing  a nuclear weapon. Since the mullahs have had a wet dream for 40 years of destroying Israel, you can imagine the Israeli policy is “we’d rather be safe than sorry.”

And it is true that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has been saying that for decades.

That seems to portray him as Chicken Little, but does not take into account the many times Israel has sabotaged Iran’s centrifuges, killed its A-scientists, or blown up facilities, setting back the program each time.

That is an unknown. Iran’s coming response is unknown. How much damage the B-2 stealth bombers and submarines did is not fully known. Trump said “obliterated,” but an Air Force general said “severely damaged.” We will know more in a few days.

So, honestly, I don’t know if the bombing was wise or dumb.

I am a middlest, and here I am in the middle. I am undecided, which is the worst thing a columnist should be. Would I have done what Trump did? No — not yet.

It depends on the outcome.

If it pressures Iran into making a genuine move away from nuclear ambitions, it was wise.

If it spreads war, it was dumb.

We will know more in the days ahead.