Dear editor,
These days, the administration’s definition of a favored term, “winning,” seems to most often coincide with various demonstrations of strength. On June 14, millions of U.S. citizens participated in thousands of protests that took place across our country. Those demonstrations, held under the collective name of “No King’s Day,” were in opposition to what organizers identified as overreach by the Trump administration with regard to its mass deportation activities and civil rights.
These coincided with a parade in Washington, DC, marking the 250th anniversary of the Army. Thousands attended that event, which fell on President Trump’s 79th birthday. For many, this was regarded as a symbolic display of power, a politicization of the armed forces, and a potential overreach of presidential authority. In response to protests held in Los Angeles, Trump mobilized the National Guard, which resulted in some clashes with protesters.
One week later, U.S. air strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites took place. This operation, referred to as “Midnight Hammer,” was described as preemptive operations to cripple Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons. It was the single U.S. offensive action of the Iran-Israel war, which began on June 13 with surprise Israeli strikes and ended on June 24 with a ceasefire.
President Trump said U.S. strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities, while statements from Iran range from claims of sites having sustained superficial damage with no irreversible harm to acknowledgments of significant destruction. Final damage assessment is ongoing. On July 2, Iran suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Even before the U.S. bombings, diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts were unproductive, and Iran’s lack of restraint in enriching uranium to near weapon-grade levels was seen as provocative. Trump’s rhetoric became hostile as he called for Iran’s unconditional surrender. Then, after the bombings, he said, “Why didn’t you negotiate with me two weeks ago?”
Now, while the administration celebrates the effectiveness of a swift military engagement that, assumably, has incapacitated Iran’s nuclear program, Americans are left to evaluate the constitutionality of the action, the longer-term effects, and Iran’s ultimate response. With the threat no longer immediate, at the moment, all’s quiet on that front. Yet Iran may still calculate that the only way to have deterrence is by having a nuclear weapon.
Peter Wibell Rutledge