“In his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised voters that he would end wars, not start them. Over the past year, he has ordered military attacks in seven countries. His appetite for military intervention grows as he eats,” we read.
“NYT” indicates that US officials expect that the current attack on Iran will be much more serious than the deliberate bombing of nuclear facilities in June. “Still [Trump] he has provided no credible explanation for why he is risking the lives of our soldiers and provoking serious reprisals from Iran. He also did not involve Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the exclusive right to declare war,” the daily writes.
The US war with Iran. “Trump has little respect for his duty to tell the truth”
According to journalists, the president presented only partial justifications for the attack, such as “support for the Iranian nation protesting against the government's tyranny” and “demanding that Iran renounce its aspirations to possess nuclear weapons.”
The NYT further points out that US intelligence and Trump himself – through the current attack – have denied the president's claims about the “destruction” of Iran's nuclear program after the June strikes.
All this “underscores how little Mr. Trump respects his duty to tell the truth when committing American military forces to combat. It also shows how little American citizens should believe his assurances about the goals and results of his growing list of military adventures.”
According to the daily's editorial board, “Trump's approach to Iran is reckless” and “his goals are unclear.” “NYT” estimates that the president failed to secure international or even domestic support for the attack, and what's more, he “disregarded both domestic and international law regarding the conduct of war.”
The US war with Iran. “Trump expects blind trust. He doesn't deserve it.”
“NYT” stipulates that the Iranian regime does not deserve defense and sympathy, and that it “poses a particular threat to the world because it combines a murderous ideology with nuclear ambitions,” which may “justify military action.” He adds – based on expert opinions – that Iran “is experiencing a period of extraordinary military, economic and political weakness” that prevents it from responding effectively to various events in the region.
But the journalists go on to say that “a responsible U.S. president could make a compelling case for further action against Iran. At the heart of that argument would have to be a clear explanation of the goals—whether they would be limited to denuclearizing Iran or include more ambitious goals, such as ending its support for terrorist groups—as well as a justification for the current attack. That strategy would include a promise to gain congressional approval and cooperate with international allies.”
The New York Times journalists also write that “a responsible approach would also mean taking into account the risk that another conflict with Iran could turn out worse than the last American attack.” They remind that “Iran remains a highly militarized country” and its missiles could break through any defense system and hit e.g. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other nearby countries.
“Mr. Trump is not even trying this approach. He tells Americans and the whole world that he expects their blind trust. He does not deserve this trust,” says the “NYT” board.
US attack on Iran. The newspaper attacks Trump. “He's always lying”
Then there are serious accusations against the president. “Instead [Trump] treats allies with contempt. He lies constantly, including about the consequences of the June attack on Iran. He has failed to fulfill his own promises to resolve other crises in Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela. He fired high-ranking military commanders for disloyalty to his political whims,” we read.
“NYT” assesses that the current US president's nominees “are making outrageous mistakes” and recalls Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's disclosure of detailed information about the military attack on the Houthis in an unsecured chat.
The authors of the text also wonder what goal Donald Trump has in Iran – whether it is to stop only the country's nuclear program or to overthrow the government of the ayatollahs. As for the first goal, journalists ask, does this mean renewing attacks every time the Iranian regime rebuilds the program? As for the desire to achieve the latter goal, “NYT” points out that “Trump has not explained why the world should expect that this attempt at regime change will end better than the attempts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 21st century.”
“Now that the military operation has begun, we want above all the safety of the American soldiers who conduct it and the well-being of the many innocent Iranians who have long suffered under their brutal rule. We regret that Mr. Trump does not treat the war as a serious matter,” summarize the representatives of the New York daily.
