One thing is obvious about Operation Midnight Hammer: Joe Biden would never have signed-off on it.
This was a decision that involved not inconsiderable risk by a US President willing to wield force to reaffirm America’s standing and authority on the global stage.
The decision to intervene in the Middle East has revealed new dimensions to Donald Trump’s approach to leadership and given greater clarity to the “America First” movement he has championed.
Yet the reaction from leading Democrats is equally telling. The near-universal criticism of the operation shows a more restrained and cautious approach to US power.
Democrats are turning the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities into a legal debate about whether the strike constituted an act of war and condemning Trump for not deferring to congress prior to taking action.
For the most part, they have ignored the bigger picture – the strategic merits of the intervention, the weakened state of Iran, the narrow window of opportunity, the removal of an existential threat to Israel, the restoration of deterrence and reassertion of US global leadership.
Motivated by partisan differences, the Democrats risk falling into yet another political trap – looking weak and lacking judgment in attacking an operation that may yet deliver tangible benefits for the world.
The strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites, at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, have already demonstrated the global reach and might of the American military.
US stealth bombers flew undetected from Missouri to the other side of the world before taking out their targets in an operation that involved 125 aircraft and 75 precision-guided weapons.
Midnight Hammer may also transform the balance of power in the Middle East.
The operation damaged Iran’s nuclear sites and may set back its nuclear program by years.
Americans are likely to view the intervention favourably if Iran’s retaliation is contained, as seen in past US actions.
The Democrats risk being on the wrong side of this equation.
Already, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has warned that Trump’s actions were “absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment”.
Hakeem Jeffries, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, said Trump had “misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorisation for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East”.
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also said that “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy”.
Yet it would have been highly impractical for Trump to have sought congressional authorisation when surprise was one of the key factors underpinning the success of Midnight Hammer.
The key issue is whether Trump ends up advancing US interests while diminishing Iran’s authority and nuclear capabilities. The legal foundations underpinning the President’s decision will be of much less interest to most Americans.
Pennsylvanian senator John Fetterman, an outspoken Democrat, stands out in supporting the strikes and grasping this logic.
“As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move,” he said in social media post. “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.”
Tax reform agenda can’t ignore changing the GST
Reworked consumption levy still a vital part of the revenue puzzle.
Firm hand still to play with Iran
Trump must keep up the pressure on Tehran.