As the smoke settles over the Iranian desert and a fragile cease-fire holds, a new battle is erupting—not overseas, but in Washington. This one is political, theatrical, and deeply hypocritical.
Several prominent Democrats are now calling for President Donald Trump’s impeachment after he ordered military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities without seeking advance approval from Congress. Their argument: the action was unconstitutional, unlawful, and dangerously escalatory. But while debate over presidential war powers is essential in any democracy, the sudden outrage from a party that has so often endorsed—if not celebrated—unilateral military action by their own presidents deserves a hard look.
The Outrage—Selective and Political
Within hours of Trump’s Operation Midnight Hammer, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared the strikes “grounds for impeachment.” Sen. Chris Murphy called them “illegal,” while Rep. Jim Himes warned of “a massive gamble.” Congressional leadership, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, focused on process, arguing that the president has no right to initiate hostilities without a congressional vote.
But where were these defenders of constitutional checks and balances when President Obama launched a seven-month air war over Libya in 2011—without a shred of congressional authorization? Where were they when President Clinton ordered 41 unilateral military actions over eight years, including a 78-day NATO bombing campaign against Serbia? And what about President Biden’s strikes in Syria and Yemen, or his drone operations in Somalia—none of which received a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)?
The numbers don’t lie. Of the roughly 240 U.S. military actions abroad in the last 100 years that proceeded without congressional approval, nearly 60 percent were launched by Democratic presidents. There were no cries of “impeachment” then—only nods to “limited scope” and “presidential prerogative.”
The War Powers Dilemma
To be fair, the legal terrain here is murky. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but it also names the president commander-in-chief. Since 1945, presidents from both parties have interpreted this to mean they can use force without prior approval so long as operations are limited in duration and scope.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution tried to rein in this trend by requiring consultation and a 48-hour report after any military deployment. Trump, notably, did submit this report—though the lack of prior consultation is a valid complaint. Still, it is not new. No president since the Resolution’s passage has ever treated its consultation requirement as binding.
International law further complicates things. While the United Nations Charter bars the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council approval, the U.S. justified its strikes as an act of self-defense—to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear breakout and to protect regional allies. Whether that rationale holds under international scrutiny is debatable, but it mirrors justifications offered by past administrations, Democrat and Republican alike.
A Time for Principle, Not Politics
This is not a defense of unbounded executive war-making. Congress should reassert its authority over decisions of war and peace. It should revise and replace outdated AUMFs. It should debate—not just react to—America’s use of force in a rapidly changing world. But using impeachment as a partisan cudgel only erodes that possibility.
If Democratic lawmakers truly believe Trump’s actions warrant impeachment, then they must also explain why the same standard did not apply to their own presidents’ unilateral strikes. Otherwise, this is not about principle—it’s about politics.
And that, at a moment of global crisis, is more dangerous than hypocrisy. It’s unserious leadership when serious decisions are needed most.
For the latest news on everything happening in Chester County and the surrounding area, be sure to follow MyChesCo on Google News and MSN.