Berl Falbaum
So, we’ll get to the bottom-line question immediately: Is the U.S. attack on Iran justified?
Now, for the problem: that question can’t be answered. Why?
I’ll explain.
Disparate voices can have different opinions on the matter if both argue their case on facts. It can be a respectful difference of opinion on a life-and-death issue.
But, as Hamlet said, “Ay, there’s the rub.”
We cannot make an informed decision because the “facts” supporting the mission come from a mythomaniac, a compulsive liar — President Trump.
Trump either lied in June 2025 when he told us that he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities or he is lying now by stating the U.S. is facing an “imminent” threat.
He can’t have it both ways.
When Trump informed the country of his decision in an eight-minute speech, he cited the attack by Iran on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 during the Clinton administration. Even if Iran was the culprit — and experts, at the time, questioned whether Iran played a role — that’s 26 years ago.
Then he pointed to Iran’s attack on the U.S. embassy in 1979. It captured and held dozens of embassy employes hostage for 444 days, releasing them on the day President Reagan was inaugurated in 1981. Again, that is some 45 years ago.
Finally, he pointed to Iran's proxies who carried out a Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 in 1983 (43 years ago).
But most important, none of the three presidents — Clinton, Carter or Reagan — started a war.
Justifying “Operation Epic Fury,” Trump claimed that Iran was planning a pre-emptive missile strike while intelligence agencies maintain that Iran does not have the capability for such an assault.
Notwithstanding the success of “Operation Midnight Hammer” in June 2025, Trump is now arguing:
"… [T]hey attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas…”
He added Iran’s missile could “soon reach the American homeland.”
So, following an obliteration in June, "We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated.”
That’s two obliterations in roughly eight months.
Finally, comes the matter of motivation — the objective.
First, it was to support the protestors on the streets demanding democracy. Then it was to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile program; then, to “obliterate” its nuclear capabilities again; then to make way for regime change.
On regime change, he acknowledged a new government might be worse than the one destroyed. That could happen, he said.
If we cannot trust his “facts,” can we trust his motivation?
Here’s a thought: Could Trump have launched the attack because Iran opposed his candidacy for president in 2020 and 2024?
That is a deplorable, preposterous idea. He would not start a war with implications for the entire world because he is angry about Iran’s political opposition. I should be ashamed of myself for even suggesting that.
Absolutely true. But I did not bring it up. Trump did.
“Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with United States,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
His message repeated the headline of an article alleging Iranian interference in American elections. The article claimed Tehran sought to influence U.S. voters through intelligence operations designed to weaken Trump’s campaign prospects in 2020 and again during the 2024 race.
We have a mini-precedent for a president ordering a military strike against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Sudan to allegedly draw attention away from a sexual scandal.
On August 20, 1998, three days after Clinton testified on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, “Operation Infinite Reach” launched missiles against Al-Qaida bases in Khost, Afghanistan, and the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for United States embassy bombings. Some countries, media outlets, protesters, and Republicans accused Clinton of ordering military operations as a diversion.
The president’s actions drew parallels to a movie “Wag the Dog,” which featured a fictional president faking a war to distract attention from a sex scandal.
Even if not true — and hopefully it is not — it is utterly chilling that Trump would even raise the issue of Iran’s opposition to him in the two presidential elections while discussing the war.
Would Trump be that nefarious, that narcissistic? I’m going to let readers decide.
Now, for the problem: that question can’t be answered. Why?
I’ll explain.
Disparate voices can have different opinions on the matter if both argue their case on facts. It can be a respectful difference of opinion on a life-and-death issue.
But, as Hamlet said, “Ay, there’s the rub.”
We cannot make an informed decision because the “facts” supporting the mission come from a mythomaniac, a compulsive liar — President Trump.
Trump either lied in June 2025 when he told us that he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities or he is lying now by stating the U.S. is facing an “imminent” threat.
He can’t have it both ways.
When Trump informed the country of his decision in an eight-minute speech, he cited the attack by Iran on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 during the Clinton administration. Even if Iran was the culprit — and experts, at the time, questioned whether Iran played a role — that’s 26 years ago.
Then he pointed to Iran’s attack on the U.S. embassy in 1979. It captured and held dozens of embassy employes hostage for 444 days, releasing them on the day President Reagan was inaugurated in 1981. Again, that is some 45 years ago.
Finally, he pointed to Iran's proxies who carried out a Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 in 1983 (43 years ago).
But most important, none of the three presidents — Clinton, Carter or Reagan — started a war.
Justifying “Operation Epic Fury,” Trump claimed that Iran was planning a pre-emptive missile strike while intelligence agencies maintain that Iran does not have the capability for such an assault.
Notwithstanding the success of “Operation Midnight Hammer” in June 2025, Trump is now arguing:
"… [T]hey attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas…”
He added Iran’s missile could “soon reach the American homeland.”
So, following an obliteration in June, "We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated.”
That’s two obliterations in roughly eight months.
Finally, comes the matter of motivation — the objective.
First, it was to support the protestors on the streets demanding democracy. Then it was to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile program; then, to “obliterate” its nuclear capabilities again; then to make way for regime change.
On regime change, he acknowledged a new government might be worse than the one destroyed. That could happen, he said.
If we cannot trust his “facts,” can we trust his motivation?
Here’s a thought: Could Trump have launched the attack because Iran opposed his candidacy for president in 2020 and 2024?
That is a deplorable, preposterous idea. He would not start a war with implications for the entire world because he is angry about Iran’s political opposition. I should be ashamed of myself for even suggesting that.
Absolutely true. But I did not bring it up. Trump did.
“Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with United States,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
His message repeated the headline of an article alleging Iranian interference in American elections. The article claimed Tehran sought to influence U.S. voters through intelligence operations designed to weaken Trump’s campaign prospects in 2020 and again during the 2024 race.
We have a mini-precedent for a president ordering a military strike against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Sudan to allegedly draw attention away from a sexual scandal.
On August 20, 1998, three days after Clinton testified on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, “Operation Infinite Reach” launched missiles against Al-Qaida bases in Khost, Afghanistan, and the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for United States embassy bombings. Some countries, media outlets, protesters, and Republicans accused Clinton of ordering military operations as a diversion.
The president’s actions drew parallels to a movie “Wag the Dog,” which featured a fictional president faking a war to distract attention from a sex scandal.
Even if not true — and hopefully it is not — it is utterly chilling that Trump would even raise the issue of Iran’s opposition to him in the two presidential elections while discussing the war.
Would Trump be that nefarious, that narcissistic? I’m going to let readers decide.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
