


Was the Trump administration correct to carry out the massive bombing attack on Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend?
That’s our Question of the Week for readers.
It’s the kind of question that raises all kinds of others.
Is the burgeoning nuclear program in the Islamic Republic a threat to the United States, as such, or just to Israel? Other unstable countries — Pakistan, for instance — have nuclear bombs, but we don’t attack them. Other even more unstable countries — North Korea — are trying to build a bomb. We don’t attack them.
Or are we indeed so properly committed to the security of Israel, the only democracy in the Mideast, that our nations’ interests are inextricably linked?
Donald Trump campaigned on being a different kind of president than other recent ones, committed to not entering into any more “forever wars.” Was this action a reneging on that promise? Or was this kind of surgical strike at specific targets a one-time action that can’t be compared to actually going to war?
Speaking of war, should this attack have been covered by the War Powers Act, the federal law intended to check the president’s power to commit the United States to armed conflict without the consent of Congress? Or does that act only cover more traditional kinds of military incursions involving U.S. troops on the ground?
Do you have worries about what the Iranian response will be? The theocratic regime has already responded with missile attacks on the U.S. base in Qatar. Was that a merely pro forma gesture, same as the response during the first Trump administration after a drone attack killed an Iranian military leader in Iraq, resulting in few U.S. casualties? Or are all Americans, abroad and at home, now in danger?
Will the Iranians now be more open to negotiations aimed at curtailing the Iranian nuclear program? Or will the bombings close that door? Should regime change be part of U.S. strategy and demands as well? Or would it backfire, in the way that the 1953 CIA-led coup did?
Email your thoughts to opinion@scng.com.