In 2004, my brother sustained injuries from an improvised explosive device in Iraq. I have my reservations about the Iranian regime. However, after the incident involving President Trump’s aircraft at Iran’s nuclear site, I can’t help but wonder: has Trump made us safer or not?
Leaving a classified briefing for Congress on the “Midnight Hammer” operation, I found myself feeling more anxious about our safety than I anticipated.
I can’t share the specifics of the briefing, but I expected reassuring insights from figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and General Dan Kane. That didn’t happen.
Instead, I left feeling more uneasy. Questions about our national security, the reasoning behind this operation, and the potential long-term consequences of such risky military actions lingered in my mind.
Over my 25 years serving as military legal counsel in Iraq and as deputy legal counsel on the National Security Council, I’ve learned the importance of clarity in purpose, an honest assessment of risks, and well-thought-out strategies for the future. Public and private statements from the administration suggested they aimed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The current operation has been described as a significant setback for Iran’s nuclear goals, with the president claiming it was “completely wiped out.” Yet, when pressed, officials seem to struggle in defining what “success” actually means.
The aim of “Midnight Hammer” remains unclear. Are they trying to hinder Iran’s nuclear developments, press Tehran into negotiations, or is this merely a display meant for domestic political reasons?
The administration can’t reliably claim to have made substantial changes to Iran’s programs without solid evidence, which, as of now, is lacking. Given that the president indicated a strike was coming last week, the Iranians had ample chance to relocate highly enriched uranium, meaning their nuclear materials likely remained unaffected.
Most importantly: has Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons really been diminished?
For years, American presidents—regardless of party—have hesitated to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, believing the potential fallout wasn’t worth it. They have concluded that the chances of effectively dismantling the program were slim.
I’ve witnessed this scenario play out before. Quick tactical triumph often leads to more significant strategic problems. Israel’s attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 delayed Saddam Hussein’s program, but it ultimately pushed it underground. Iran’s already secretive nuclear program could also become more hidden from international oversight. This isn’t a victory. The future holds tough questions.
This isn’t to downplay the skills and bravery of the military personnel involved in this mission. They executed it exceptionally. No other forces could have accomplished what they did. The real question is whether our leaders fulfilled their responsibilities—by grappling with tough questions, setting realistic objectives, and planning for what follows.
Congress and the American people deserve transparency regarding the motivations, risks, and actual effects of this operation. Without clarity, we risk simply obscuring deeper entanglements under a veil of progress.
I need answers—quickly. Right now, hope is all we possess, but that’s not a strategy.
