Trump must explain U.S. objectives in Iran

The U.S.-led attacks on Iran launched over the weekend deliberately and instantly scrambled economic, political and military affairs in the Mideast — and just as quickly signaled new and indefinite long- and short-term challenges for America. It is difficult at this moment not to feel that the world is in a more dangerous place.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, the repressive theocratic head of this belligerent government since 1989, was killed. A delusional leader who indoctrinated the nation's schoolchildren to recite a "Death to America" chant each morning, he will not be mourned.

Death tolls of U.S. military members and civilians in Israel and other Gulf nations are mounting, as President Donald Trump said Sunday the action could continue for weeks.

This newly launched war will have a risky and incalculable economic impact. Analysts are warning of a global spike in oil and liquid natural gas prices as the world assesses a reeling Iran's continuing threat to shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. The cost of the weapons used and damage to our military bases in the region will run into the billions.

Surely it is a good thing for the world to see the menace of Tehran's nuclear capability devastated, even though Trump last year claimed that this had already been done. Iran, a terrorist state, would be likely to use nuclear weapons if it had them. But Trump promised no new foreign wars — and he hasn't told us why he changed his mind. The successful joint Israeli-American attack exploited an astonishing penetration of Khamenei's security network but such an opportunity alone does not provide a full rationale for Trump's decision.

"To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand," Trump said in a video posted in the early hours of Saturday. He urged, "When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations." By Sunday afternoon, in a second video post, he lauded service members who died and predicted, "Sadly, there likely will be more before it ends."

What's the U.S. goal? 

 Will Trump be willing to walk away, satisfied with a weakened Iran that has a degraded military capacity and little nuclear capability? Or will he truly work for the regime change he urged Iranians to rise up and embrace? If that's the administration's rationale, there is little evidence of plans to assist dissident Iranians or of a commitment to the hard work it would take for that turnaround to happen.

Most of us want liberty for all and hope for what's mutually best. But Trump's "liberation" rationale for this war leaves Americans sensibly skeptical that uncontrolled regional strife will be averted. That's especially so after many years in which Trump has railed about how the United States has to end bloody interventions and neoconservative "nation building."

Trump must credibly explain the sweeping reversal on armed intervention in foreign wars. We have a right to know and, through our elected representatives, decide the merits of unleashing our miliary might. Congress doesn't merely sign a permission slip — its support signals to the world the seriousness of our purpose and tells our allies there is a legitimacy to our effort. Congress, which has constitutional responsibility when it comes to waging war, should no longer play the role of spectators who cheer or heckle the president from partisan sidelines.

The problem now is that we don't know from whom Iran's fierce and deeply indoctrinated Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will be taking orders. A temporary governing committee will rule while a new leader is chosen, but it's unlikely to be someone eager to abandon the clerical crony capitalism and jihad-oriented thinking that has enriched some but allowed most of the population to suffer.

The IRGC is vowing, with familiar pomp, "the most ferocious offensive operation in history." That includes defending Khameini's legacy and "standing firm against internal and external plots." Which could mean they will continue killing protesters in the tens of thousands as U.S.-encouraged dissent spreads around their country.

The possibility of success from a strategy with the Gulf states is one thing. Lacking one completely is another. It may be telling that in this hemisphere, the U.S. government's recent removal of Nicolás Maduro as president of Venezuela bears similar unanswered questions. Delcy Rodríguez, who had been Maduro's executive vice president, took over as interim president, and so far keeps much of the same governing structure. Trump seems in no rush to resume elections there. The invasion of Iran threatens to have a far more volatile epilogue than that of Venezuela.

Since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, the Middle East has been rearranged. Hamas and Hezbollah have been decapitated. The leader of Syria is gone. The initial, successful attack on Iran this weekend could not have happened otherwise. These new geopolitical realities call for rethinking the U.S. role in the region — and that cannot happen without Congress and the American people having a voice.