In 2004, my brother was wounded by an improvised explosive device in Iraq that was certainly built by Iran. I have no love for the Iranian regime. But after President Trump’s air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, I keep asking myself: Has Trump made us more or less safe?
After I left the classified briefing for members of Congress on Operation “Midnight Hammer,” I fear more for our safety now than I did before.
I won’t discuss what was said in the briefing, but I wish I could say the briefing by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put my mind at ease. It did not.
Instead, I left the briefing more concerned than when I walked in — about our national security, the rationale for this operation, and the long-term consequences of what may well be a strategic gamble masquerading as a military success.
Over my 25 years in the U.S. Army, including time as a military legal advisor in Iraq and as deputy legal advisor at the National Security Council, I’ve seen how military actions are planned, authorized and evaluated. That experience has taught me to look for clarity of purpose, honest assessments of risk and a clear-eyed strategy for what comes next. Nothing that the administration has said, publicly or privately, suggests to me that they have a strategic framework for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The administration framed the most recent operation as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Totally obliterated” the president claimed. Yet, when pressed for clear answers, officials struggle to articulate what “success” looks like.
The objectives of “Midnight Hammer” remain frustratingly vague. Was the goal to delay Iran’s nuclear breakout capability? To coerce Tehran into future negotiations? Or was this a show of force meant primarily for domestic political consumption?
The administration cannot credibly claim a meaningful setback to their program without proof, and so far, that proof is missing. Further, with the president telegraphing the strikes a week in advance, the Iranians had plenty of opportunity to move the highly enriched uranium, leaving the nuclear material unaffected.
Finally, and most critically: Has Iran’s nuclear breakout capability been meaningfully diminished?
For decades American presidents — both Democrat and Republican — have resisted the urge to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, deciding that the consequences were not worth the risks involved. Each of those administrations had reasoned that the probability of sufficiently setting back the program was insufficiently high enough to risk driving the program underground or preventing breakout.
We’ve seen this movie before. Short-term tactical wins often lead to long-term strategic problems. The 1981 Israeli strike on Osirak, Iraq’s nuclear reactor, delayed Saddam Hussein’s program — but it also drove it underground. Iran’s nuclear program, already shrouded in secrecy, may now retreat further from the eyes of international inspectors. That’s not victory. That’s a harder problem tomorrow.
This is not to minimize the skill or bravery of the servicemembers who carried out the mission. They did their job magnificently. There was no other military in the world capable of doing what they did. The question is whether our civilian leadership did theirs — by asking the hard questions, setting achievable objectives and preparing for the aftermath.
Congress and the American public deserve to know the rationale, the risks and the real effects of this operation. Absent that, we are left hoping that the smoke clears to reveal progress, not a deeper entanglement.
We need answers — fast. Right now, hope is all we have — and that’s not a strategy.
Eugene Vindman represents the 7th Congressional District of Virginia in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a former U.S. Army colonel, with 25 years of service, including as a senior military legal advisor and as deputy legal advisor at the National Security Council.
Source link
