The events of June 21, 2025, will forever be marked in the annals of world history. It solidifies the day Iran bore the consequence of its ongoing conflict with the West. The reckoning that has been looming since Iran’s alleged support of the Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires on March 17, 1992, had finally arrived. This marked a significant decline in radical Islamic aggression, primed since the hostilities against Israel on October 7, 2023.
Iran’s key nuclear facilities housed in Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan were reduced to rubble by the impact of American weapons. The country was immediately stripped of its nuclear prowess that once posed a considerable threat not only to Israel but the entire Middle East, and more expansively, the free world. The alliance between Israel and America, which played a pivotal role in achieving this outcome, calls for a true celebration.
Israel took the initial steps to weaken the target, America then seized the opportunity to strike the decisive blow. Now, a window for lasting peace has appeared. It is imperative for factions like Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis to reevaluate their fear-inducing dominion. These groups need to allow Israel, Lebanon, and the rest of the Middle East, a chance to embrace a peaceful existence.
The potential route towards an era of peace and prosperity is distinct, with the Abraham Accords establishing a strong precedent. The fallout of persistent defiance is also audibly clear. Detractors who argue the president violated the law, instigated an unauthorized act of war, or committed a breach of conduct justifying impeachment, are missing some vital perspectives.
Skeptics have often referred to the War Powers Resolution passed in 1973 by Congress, challenging its constitutionality. They argue that the resolution inhibits the president’s authority as the commander-in-chief. The jurisprudence regarding this resolution’s constitutionality is uncertain—The Supreme Court is yet to hand down a definitive judgment.
However, assuming the War Powers Resolution is indeed constitutional—and applicable in this context—it appears the president abided by its guidelines. The resolution grants the president the liberty to deploy forces without the need for congressional approval for a period not exceeding 60 days. Historically, multiple presidents have indeed engaged active troops in various locations without acquiring explicit consent from Congress.
In this instance, it could be contended that the president did not technically deploy ‘troops’, but instead authorized a restricted, precise aerial assault with zero ground forces. Moreover, if we consider that the War Powers Resolution is indeed applicable here, the short duration of the forces’ involvement—completed in minutes, well short of the admissible 60 days—supports the President’s full compliance.
In essence, the claim that the president transgressed any laws, or committed an impeachable act, is unsubstantiated. Instead, it could be argued that by preventing the world’s most dangerous nation from acquiring nuclear weapons, the president’s actions deserve acknowledgment and endorsement, not reproof.
While witnessing the celebration of the Florida Panthers championship parade, an interesting analogy struck me. The outpouring of spectators and the exhilaration that enveloped South Florida showcased their immense pride for their local hockey team. Our own parade in Fort Lauderdale served as an appropriate homage to an extraordinary team.
I couldn’t help but think about the contrasting reactions to a hypothetical scenario where Kamala Harris was elected to the presidency. I imagine fervent praises for a parade commemorating the United States Army’s 250th anniversary would be plentiful. Instead, the focus was diverted to critique the past presidency, stirring up needless controversy.