The American newspaper The New York Times has described the strikes carried out by Washington in Iran under the direction of President Donald Trump as reckless and lacking even a minimum level of clear strategy or legal justification.
In an editorial translated by Arabi21, the paper stated that Trump, who had promised voters during his 2024 election campaign to end wars rather than start them, has openly contradicted those pledges. Over the past year alone, he has reportedly ordered military strikes against seven countries, indicating that his appetite for military intervention is expanding rather than diminishing.
According to the newspaper, Trump ordered a new attack against Iran in coordination with Israel, asserting that it would be broader in scope than the bombing of nuclear facilities that took place in June. However, he initiated the war without offering a clear explanation to the American public or the international community, and without consulting Congress, which under the Constitution holds exclusive authority to declare war.
Rather than using formal channels, Trump announced the beginning of the bombing through a video message, claiming the existence of imminent threats and calling for regime change. The newspaper described these justifications as questionable, arguing that presenting a matter of such magnitude through a late night video was unacceptable.
Contradictions and Credibility Concerns
The newspaper noted that Trump justified the attack by citing the elimination of Iran’s nuclear programme, an objective it described as worthy of pursuit. Yet it highlighted what it called a stark contradiction in his statements. He had previously declared the programme obliterated in the June strike, a claim contradicted by American intelligence reports and by the very fact of the renewed attack.
This inconsistency, the editorial argued, justifies the limited level of trust Americans should place in reassurances from a president portrayed as indifferent to his duty to tell the truth when committing armed forces to combat.
The paper further accused Trump of treating allies with disdain, engaging in persistent misrepresentation, and failing to resolve crises in Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela. It also cited the protection of officials who committed serious errors, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who reportedly shared sensitive military details through an unsecured communication channel.
Additionally, it referenced potential violations of international law by the administration, including the alleged disguise of a military aircraft and the targeting of unarmed sailors.
Regional Risks and Congressional Pushback
The editorial warned that Iran, despite its current weaknesses, retains a missile arsenal capable of striking the region and inflicting casualties on American forces. Trump himself has acknowledged this risk, though he was described as evasive when addressing it during the State of the Union speech.
The newspaper welcomed moves within Congress, including initiatives by Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, to restrict presidential war powers. It expressed deep concern over what it described as the ambiguity of Trump’s objectives, drawing parallels with past regime change ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that ended in failure.
In conclusion, the editorial expressed regret that the president does not treat war with the gravity it demands, presenting it instead as a course of action taken without sufficient clarity, legality or strategic foresight.
