I was thinking (and agree with) these two points:

The strikes have been widely condemned as violations of international law, further isolating the U.S. and its allies diplomatically.

The attack could unify the Iranian population behind their government, strengthening the regime rather than weakening it.


I also am not convinced that is was legal under US law, War Powers Act not withstanding (e.g. "what emergency?"). Which I lump into the first point made. Congress should take action if it was not approved in some manner, but they won't since the Rep side is afraid of the Felon.

I, too, am not privy to all the intelligence. Unfortunately, I'm almost certain the Felon didn't read/hear any of it, either. He evidently has no patience for reading and briefings. So this was probably no more well-informed a decision than any of us could have made.

Sure...if Iran attacked us in some manner, strike back. I'm sorta a hawk about that. The closest we could come is the Houthis launching anti-ship missiles (which they got from Iran). But we've directed our strikes at them, up until now. They were/are a proxy for Iran. But, thus far, I haven't heard that listed as a justification for the attack.