Let me try a different angle. Think about doping in the Olympics. For decades the system tried diplomacy — testing, warnings, suspensions, appeals, international agreements. And for decades cheaters found ways around every rule. Eventually the governing bodies had to ask a harder question: when the rules exist but nobody enforces them with teeth, do the rules actually exist?
Congressional authorization is a real and legitimate concern. But Iran has been in open violation of international frameworks — nuclear agreements, proxy warfare, targeting of civilians — for decades. The diplomatic toolkit was exhausted repeatedly. JCPOA was tried. It was cheated on. Sanctions were tried. They were bypassed.
History has a pattern: when a party consistently violates agreed rules AND blocks every enforcement mechanism, the choice eventually becomes either accept the violation permanently, or act outside the slow process. That's not ideal. It's not pretty. But it's the pattern from Nuremberg to Kosovo to now.
The authorization question is real and worth Congress fighting for. But the underlying question — what do you do when diplomacy has been tried and failed repeatedly — that one doesn't have a clean procedural answer. Sometimes the force comes first and the legal framework catches up. I'm not saying that's right. I'm saying that's what actually happens in recorded history, every time.
)
