Trump's Attack on Iran Is Reckless -- NYT Editorial Board

[ancianita]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/opinion/iran-attack-trump-war.html

non paywall https://archive.ph/naWMi

"In his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised voters that he would end wars, not start them. Over the past year, he has instead ordered military strikes in seven nations. His appetite for military intervention grows with the eating.

Now he has ordered a new attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in cooperation with Israel, and Mr. Trump said it would be much more extensive than the targeted bombing of nuclear facilities in June. Yet he started this war without explaining to the American people and the world why he was doing so. Nor has he involved Congress, which the Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. He instead posted a video at 2:30 a.m. Eastern on Saturday, shortly after bombing began, in which he said that Iran presented “imminent threats” and called for the overthrow of its government. His rationale is dubious, and making his case by video in the middle of the night is unacceptable.

Among his justifications is the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program, which is a worthy goal. But Mr. Trump declared that program “obliterated” by the strike in June, a claim belied by both U.S. intelligence and this new attack. The contradiction underscores how little regard he has for his duty to tell the truth when committing American armed forces to battle. It also shows how little faith American citizens should place in his assurances about the goals and results of his growing list of military adventures.

Mr. Trump’s approach to Iran is reckless. His goals are ill-defined. He has failed to line up the international and domestic support that would be necessary to maximize the chances of a successful outcome. He has disregarded both domestic and international law for warfare...."

[Sneederbunk]

1. That, and about everything else he does.

[ancianita]

2. Truth. After this, looks as if the NYT Editorial Board won't be giving him any future benefit of a doubt.

[everyonematters]

3. This attack was definitely unconstitutional.

Even if something good comes out of this, it does not change the fact that it was contrary to the Constitution.

[ancianita]

5. Yes, and definitely broke international law.

[slightlv]

4. Under his rationale...

in which he said that Iran presented “imminent threats” and called for the overthrow of its government.

The same could be said for any country that wants to bomb US back to the stone ages (which at this point, wouldn't be far).
We say everything he says is projection... so is this statement.