At some point during the early 2000s, revulsion displaced enthusiasm for the Iraq War. Charities such as Tunnels to Towers solicited contributions during breaks between coverage of the war on Fox News. Commercials featuring footage of homes retrofitted to accommodate amputee veterans showed the struggles of men who now had to act as father and husband from the confines of a wheelchair. The struggle in Iraq, meanwhile, was never-ending. It was impossible to cheerlead a war that left such pointless devastation in its wake.

My only child is a draft-aged son. When my phone flashed this weekend with the alert that we had attacked Iran, I told him the president owed an explanation to the country. If this strike starts yet another forever war predicated on nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, then Trump will have betrayed his mandate and his supporters.

Reports of an intelligence dispute over Iranian nuclear capability further stimulated my Iraq War déjà vu. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testifying before Congress in March that the intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor, closely, if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.” Yet now, it seems the story has changed on a dime.

I can understand how an attack on the Iranian nuclear program benefits Israel and Saudi Arabia. But does it help America? Does it make America great again? Or has the president sold out to neocon interests that extract a war-per-president as a kind of tax? I imagined the deal-making candidate meeting with shadowy figures during the campaign. Was there a deal?

I watched as the president swaggered to the lectern flanked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Vice President JD Vance. Each matched the president’s stern visage. Hegseth and Rubio briefly jockeyed for position before Rubio claimed the power position behind the president’s left shoulder. Hegseth stood awkwardly off to the side.

Rubio has acquitted himself brilliantly as secretary of state. He broke up the USAID cartel that orchestrates censorship of conservative voices. He’s serious and effective. Vance’s presence similarly reassured MAGA supporters. The recent Signal leak scandal revealed his behind-the-scenes anti-interventionist advocacy. It was good to see him participating. Hegseth maintained the operational security and executed a flawlessly-coordinated attack.

Trump’s speechwriting must have been informed by the Bush administration’s mistakes during the Iraq War of the 2000s. There was no exotic claim of “yellowcake uranium” or similar attempt to persuade the listener with scary-sounding technical terms. Trump did not claim to have special knowledge of Iran’s nuclear program. He simply said he wanted to degrade their nuclear enrichment capacity and that the program was dangerous. Unlike the mysterious chemical weapons stockpiles that never materialized in Iraq, Trump selected targets that were known to be what he said they were.

Bush, on the other hand, made the case for toppling Hussein and occupying Iraq. How else could we find these weapons if we did not control the whole of Iraq? At this time, Trump is not actively building a case for an invasion and has limited his intervention to airstrikes.

Beyond stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Trump made the case that Iran had it coming. Trump blames Iran for the images Americans saw of wounded soldiers mangled by improvised explosive devices (IEDs). This accusation is backed up by evidence captured on the battlefield.  

Trump claimed Iran killed more than 1,000 of our troops and mutilated many more. The real numbers might be much lower but it is certainly not a trivial number. Setting aside Israeli and Saudi Arabian security interests, Trump justified destroying the nuclear production facilities as payback for what Iran did to our troops in Iraq.

But is that a valid justification? The last serious IED activity ended in 2011 when the U.S. ended its offensive operations in Iraq. Is 14 years too long to wait to address Iran’s interference in the Iraq war? It might deter future belligerents thinking of taking a potshot at an American soldier, but is that connection obvious?

Despite Trump’s claim that the Iranian uranium refinement program was totally obliterated, it seems we still need to confirm that. There’s been no detectable increase in atmospheric radioactive material. The New York Times worried about such leaks in the aftermath of bombing the refining process. How can we destroy a uranium-refining operation without scattering some uranium into the environment? Does U-235 have a sufficiently low half-life that it’s not easily detectable? Or was the refined material moved before the attack as part of the evacuation? Iran claims that it was moved prior to the attacks. And others, including Israel, have suggested that there is more to the story.

We can all celebrate the safe return of the American serviceman that participated in the operation. We can further be happy that no innocent life was lost in the operation, if current reports hold. If America’s participation in this war ends with the strike, Trump may yet achieve a rare clean victory in the Middle East quagmire. But it’s a huge risk. We Americans will now collectively hold our breath, waiting for another shoe to drop.