Share New Jersey Insight

Overnight, the United States undertook a major military operation against Iran. In his announcement, President Trump articulated an objective to "defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime." He also recognized the possibility that American lives may be lost and that "we may have causalities. That often happens in war."

We were told that intense negotiations with Iran occurred to avoid military action and that diplomacy was the preferred method. But now with this conflict (dubbed Operation Epic Fury) underway, we should not lose sight of the following:

1. The Iranian regime hardly elicits any sympathy. They operate in the absence of any democratic legitimacy, and they fail to accord any respect to the rights of the Iranian people, as evidenced by the most recent violent crackdown of protestors.

2. The U.S. Constitution is clear on the decision-making for war. It is not for the President to decide unilaterally, but it is for Congress to "declare War." And to date, Congress - the institution that ought to represent the will of the people - has not debated the propriety of armed conflict with Iran.

3. The President's remarks invoke the idea that the United States acted in self-defense. Yes, armed conflict may be justified to prevent an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. But the President, so far, has not laid out a persuasive case, backed with evidence, on the necessity to do so now.

4. The United Nations Charter, a document that the United States ratified in 1945, requires -- outside of self-defense -- authorization from the UN Security Council for armed conflict "as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." This has not happened.

5. The means on how we as a country decide to use military force matters. And so does the law. As I mentioned previously in response to the military operation in Venezuela, "when it comes to war and peace, the means matters. In fact, it’s the means that can actually avoid war and keep the peace."

With the safety of countless civilians and our service members in mind, I'll end by echoing my past observation, that "the United States is now operating with the power of might, rather than the power of right.

And I do not know what comes next for our Nation."

Share

Subscribe now

Make no mistake. Maduro doesn’t exactly elicit any sympathy. Though he assumed the presidency of Venezuela in 2013, after the 2018 presidential election, the national Venezuelan legislature refused to recognize Maduro as the legitimate president. The United States has not recognized Maduro as Venezuela’s leader since 2019.

A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York originally returned a criminal indictment in 2020 and charged Maduro with, among other things, narcotics trafficking, terrorism, and the possession of destructive devices.

After the 2024 presidential election, Maduro declared himself the leader despite evidence to the contrary. In the end, his hold on the Venezuelan presidency barely had the veneer (if at all) of any democratic legitimacy - on top of the troubling accusations of narcotics trafficking.

Subscribe now

So yes, now that Maduro is detained in the United States, he ought to face trial for the serious charges leveled against him. And as with any criminal defendant in the U.S., Maduro will (and should) have the full panoply of protections under American law so that he can defend himself.

But no matter how just the ends are, they do not (and cannot) justify the means. The means themselves must be defensible. I can understand the compulsion of an executive to seek results swiftly without being bogged down with process (the “means”). Though not the best comparison, our current political discourse is heavily focused on affordability and how leaders can quickly act and cut through red tape to secure relief, whether it be on housing, wages, or the cost of living. A whole book makes the case that in areas like building homes and infrastructure, leaders should focus more on results and less on burdensome process.

But this isn’t the building of a house or a bridge. When it comes to war and peace, the means matters. In fact, it’s the means that can actually avoid war and keep the peace.

And here, the means is defined by law. One doesn’t need to be a legal expert to conclude that - at a minimum - absent a threat to the security of the United States, an authorization from Congress, or a blessing from the United Nations Security Council, this military action was “entirely unauthorized by U.S. law” and “a textbook violation of international law.”1

Now, the country, and the people of Venezuela, are left with the consequences. A thought has been playing repeatedly in my mind today since the news broke. An old adage tells us that history can repeat itself unless we learn from it. But rather than repeat, I believe history tends to rhyme. Last night’s military action evokes memories of U.S. intervention in so many countries in the Western Hemisphere, such as in Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Chile, El Salvador, and others - a long line of history that I thought would be left in the books of history. Instead, Venezuela, which is already burdened with its share of overwhelming challenges, will have to find a path to democratic stability. And the United States is now operating with the power of might, rather than the power of right.

And I do not know what comes next for our Nation.