It is without doubt that the 21st of June, 2025 holds an invaluable place in historical records. This significant day will always be remembered as the day Iran was held accountable for its long-standing military hostility against the Western world. The roots of this reckoning can be traced back to March 17, 1992, when Iran allegedly supported a catastrophic attack on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. The eventual downfall marked the culmination of a series of hostile actions against Israel, with a notable event being the radical Islamic attack that took place on October 7, 2023.
A significant turn of events took place when American aircrafts dropped bombs over Iran’s nuclear facilities – Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. These targeted strikes successfully neutralized Iran’s nuclear capabilities, thereby absolving it of being a nuclear threat to Israel, and by extension, the Middle East and the rest of the free world. It provided a unique opportunity for the world to witness the strength of the strategic partnership between Israel and America, a camaraderie to be admired.
This momentous event symbolized not just the end of Iran as a nuclear threat, but importantly, the end of its military hostility. It marked an opportune moment for Iran, along with groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, to cease their terror campaigns. This is undeniably the step forward towards a future where not just Israel and Lebanon, but the entire Middle East, can experience peace and tranquility. It’s a step towards creating an environment where the vision of the Abraham Accords can truly be realized.
The choices here are simple and clear. On one hand, there’s the path towards peace and prosperity, evidence of which can be seen in the successes of the Abraham Accords. On the other hand, the consequences of defiance and lack of cooperation are unmistakable. The political climate isn’t without its critics though. Some detractors argue that the president went out of bounds, stating that failing to gain congressional approval constitutes an impeachable offense, a declaration of war, or a legal violation.
This criticism is often rooted in the War Powers Resolution, a piece of legislation that Congress passed in 1973. By virtue of confining a president’s powers as the supreme military commander, numerous experts raise questions of its constitutionality. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has not issued a definitive ruling on this matter. Much as we might hypothesize that the War Powers Resolution is both constitutional and applicable in this scenario, it appears the president has indeed adhered to it.
A key stipulation of the War Powers Resolution is the requirement for a president to deploy forces for a period of up to 60 days without the need for congressional authorization. In reality, previous presidents have similarly deployed troops into conflict zones without initiating any formal request or approval from Congress. Observers may argue that in this case, the president did not technically deploy forces, given that it was a limited precision airstrike with no ground troops being sent in.
But assuming the War Powers Resolution does apply to this operation, the military forces were withdrawn within minutes, a period much shorter than the maximum 60 days allowed by the aforementioned resolution. Consequently, it can be deduced that the president obeyed this directive completely not breaking any laws. In conclusion, it should be agreed upon that the president’s actions do not constitute illegality, let alone grounds for impeachment.
On the contrary, the disarmament of one of the most volatile nations in the world, denying them the opportunity to deploy nuclear weapons, is something for which the president should be commended, not chastised. It was amidst such high political stakes that I found myself witnessing the victory parade of the Florida Panthers. The sheer number of people and the evident joy on their faces revealed how proud South Florida is of its hockey team. It was a tribute to a great team held in Fort Lauderdale that was nothing short of extraordinary.
A thought struck me during these celebrations — if Kamala Harris had become president, the adulation and praise poured on this parade, designed to honor the United States Army’s 250th anniversary, would be teeming. But the sole focus seemed to be on previous political tenures, and indulgence in criticism rather than celebration. That, in retrospect, seems unjust.