Sarah Sicard: Trump went rogue on Iran—and whataboutism can’t save him
By Sarah Sicard
A kneejerk defense from the Trump administration acolytes came hard and fast over the weekend as reports trickled across the web of US B-2 bombers laying waste to Iranian nuclear facilities.
“Obama carried out hundreds of drone strikes. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. How is what Trump did any different?” It’s the same whataboutism that resurfaces every time a president in recent memory has taken unilateral military action. But here’s the problem: this time really is different. And pretending it’s not is dangerously dishonest for our democratic functions.
When former President George W. Bush launched the War on Terror after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Congress handed him the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force—a sweeping piece of legislation serving as a permission slip for Bush to pursue any and all persons responsible for 9/11 (along with any terrorists that threatened America). A year later, a similar AUMF was enacted by Congress for the purposes of entering into the Iraq War.
The 2001 AUMF text reads as such: “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
This piece of legislation, in essence, serves as a Congressional pre-authorization for the executive branch to pursue counterterrorism missions.
When President Barack Obama expanded airstrikes and covert operations across the Middle East and Africa, he leaned, however tenuously, on the 2001 AUMF. Was this essentially blank check to fight terrorism overused? Perhaps. Did it need to be repealed, replaced, or updated? Many scholars would say yes. But both presidents Bush and Obama technically operated within its loose legal bounds. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, has not.
According to Brown University’s Watson Institute for for International and Public Affairs, through the 2001 AUMF, “The executive branch has consistently used vague language to describe the locations of operations, failed to accurately describe the full scope of activities in many places, and in some cases simply failed to report on counterterrorism hostilities.”
Trump’s strike on Iran doesn’t fall under the 2001 AUMF. There is no reason for Iran to be classified as a 9/11 co-conspirator nearly 24 years after the fact. And terrorism, though it lacks a universally accepted definition, doesn’t fit as a description for the actions of the Iranian government—at least not one that would allow Trump to attack it under the guise of this particular legislation.
Operation Midnight Hammer wasn’t an act of counterterrorism. It was a geopolitical message, one launched without clear provocation or legal authority. It was an attack on another country’s infrastructure. It was an act of war. That’s not just another Middle East conflict headline, it’s a break from decades of precedent.
What about Obama? What about Bush? The answer is simple—Trump’s attack on Iran is not the same.
Whataboutism can’t account for this. There’s a legal and constitutional line between executive overreach and outright disregard for congressional authority. Trump didn’t stretch the bounds of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, he bypassed them altogether. He didn’t seek congressional approval for his attack on Iran, and there wasn’t a clear and present danger to the US that warranted unilateral action.
Critics may rightly point out that Congress has failed as of yet to repeal or revise the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, which gives the executive branch continued leeway to pursue terrorists at-large and continue missions in Iraq, but Trump targeted Iran and chose a side in its war with Israel.
This strike isn’t just another chapter baked into America’s Forever Wars in the Middle East. It’s a warning, one that if unheeded by Congress, will mean that this current and our future presidents won’t need an excuse or consensus to bomb a perceived enemy—just a target.
As Iran takes aim at US military bases around the Middle East in retaliation for Saturday’s attack, will Trump turn to Congress to legally declare war and seek his own AUMF, or will he decide behind closed doors to put thousands of American troops in harm’s way for a fight nobody wants?
Sarah Sicard is deputy political editor for COURIER’s network of state newsrooms.
