Trump triggers constitutional and political conflicts internal by attacking Iran

United States President Donald Trump broke one of the pillars of his foreign policy by sorting a direct military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. For years, Trump has positioned himself as a critic of the past’s “eternal wars” and promised not to drag the US for new conflicts in the Middle East. However, after a series of coordinated bombing with Israel, he began an operation that analysts already classify as one of the risky in recent American history.

On Saturday night, Trump stated that Iranian uranium enrichment facilities were “complete and totally destroyed” and warned that Iran should seek peace or face even greater consequences.

Also read: China condemns US attacks on Iran and alerts to global risk
Brazil “condemns with vehemence” attacks from Israel and the United States to Iran
Trump “dirty hands” by attacking Iran in support of Israel
Editorial: Trump and Nethanyahu are synonymous with war, genocide and aggression

Change of regime: the true objective

Despite official justifications about the alleged Iranian nuclear threat, Trump was clear in recent hours: his goal goes beyond the dismantling of the nuclear program. In a post on social networks, the president asked: “If the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran big again [MIGA]Why would there be no change of regime ??? ”

This statement feeds assertive that the true goal of the US is to overthrow the Government of Iran and replace it with a regime aligned with Washington and Tel Aviv-something that goes far beyond the nuclear issue and points to a geopolitical reconfiguration of the Middle East.

Analysts warn that this strategy can lead to a significant climbing in the conflict. “Beware of mission diversion, advancement to regime change and democratization campaigns,” said Laura Blumenfeld of the Johns Hopkins School of advanced international studies. “You will find buried on the sands of the Middle East the bones of many US moral moral missions.”

Millions of people have been killed and devastated societies due to US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, among others, locked as part of the so -called “war on terror.” It also cost trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of US soldiers.

Resistance grows in Congress and within the Republican Party itself

Several critics accused Trump on Saturday night of violating the US Constitution by launching
Military attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities without the approval of Congress. He has increasingly entrusted in executive powers to govern internally, and now it seems to be setting the congress aside in its foreign policy. Trump faces a strong wave of criticism from both Democrats and Republican Party sectors.

“Trump said he would end the wars; now he dragged America to one,” Senator Christopher Van Hollen Junior (Democrat-MD) said in a statement. “Its act is a clear violation of our constitution – ignoring the requirement that only Congress has the authority to declare war,” Senator Van Hollen said.

Progressive congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Trump violated the constitution and resolution on war powers. “He impulsively risked launching a war that can entangle us for generations. It’s absolutely and clearly reason for impeachment,” she said. But with Republicans controlling the Senate and the House of Representatives, legislators have few tools to influence their military decision.

In addition, republican representatives such as Thomas Massie (Kentucky) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia) also condemned the action. Massie drew attention to the fact that “when two countries bombard each other daily in a fierce war, and a third country joins the bombing, this is an act of war.”

Massie and Deputy Democrat Ro Khanna introduced a bipartisan resolution asking any additional military action to receive explicit authorization from Congress. Senator Tim Kaine (Democrat-VA), who presented a similar measure in the Senate, argued that “Congress must resume control over decisions of war and peace.”

Ideological division within the magician and between allies

Even within the Maga (Make America Great Again) movement, Trump’s decision generated division. This Trump base is also opposed to US adhesion to the Israeli War. The organization pointed out that Trump won the election with the promise of not compromising Washington with another war in the Middle East. They want Trump to focus on internal issues, especially the economy

Influential figures like Tucker Carlson and Stephen Bannon criticized the intervention, while others, such as Senators Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz, defended a hard line against Iran.

Trita Prasi, co -founder of the Quincy Institute, warned that Trump runs the risk of alienating her own fervent supporters, who believed in her promise of “America first” and less involvement abroad.

“Many can temporarily follow by loyalty or patriotism. But if the war is not successful, we will see a much faster opposite reaction than in 2003,” Prasi said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Vice President JD Vance, once known to isolation visions, tried to reassure the supporters saying that “now we have a president who really knows how to achieve the US national security goals.” But its position contrasts with the vision of historical figures of the magician.

Legal and diplomatic consequences

Jurists and specialists in international law have questioned the legality of the attack. In the US press, they claim that Trump violated both international and US constitutional law by launching the attack without legislative approval.

Iran has already denounced the action as “a serious and unprecedented violation of the United Nations Letter”, requiring responses from the international community.

The situation puts pressure on the US to clarify its position on multilateral organisms, especially at a time when Beijing and Moscow increase its influence in the region.

Prolonged war or return to diplomacy?

Although Trump insists that the attacks have been limited and accurate, analysts warn that the conflict can escape control quickly. Several evaluations point out that Iran can choose to return to the negotiating table, although now in a more fragile position, or continue to climb the answer.

“Military attacks alone cannot destroy Iran’s broad nuclear knowledge,” warned Arms Control Association. “They will make the Iran’s nuclear program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran’s determination to rebuild its nuclear activities.”

With the possibility of new attacks, closing of Ormuz Strait or increased tension with powers such as China and Russia, the world watches with concern for the next chapter of this crisis.

Iran promises total resistance

Shortly after the attacks, Iran responded firmly. The country’s atomic energy organization said it will not allow its nuclear development to be interrupted, while state television has classified all US citizens and military in the region as legitimate targets.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement stating that “Tehran considers his right to resist with all his forces to US military aggression.” Analysts suggest that Iran may retaliate by closing the Strait of Ormuz, launching missiles against American bases and regional allies or activating armed groups linked to the regime.

Trump, who has promised to end the endless wars for years, is now at the center of a new conflict front in the Middle East. Your slogan of “peace through strength” will be tested like never before, and the price can be high – both for the US and the presidency itself.

“Now Trump is back in the war business,” said Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group. “This always seemed more a campaign phrase than a strategy.”

With information from news agencies