The Vice President appropriately praised the personnel who carried out the Iranian bombings. That seems odd. For months this administration has proclaimed that previous administrations have decimated the military. The personnel, however, were trained before Trump 2.0. The planes and the bombs were conceived, developed, and constructed well before he took office. Trump may have made the decision to bomb, but the capability to do the mission belongs to previous administrations. Nevertheless, I don’t expect to hear apologies.

We are unlikely to hear anything as self-effacing from Trump as John F. Kennedy said: “Those of you who regard my profession of political life with some disdain should remember that it made it possible for me to move from being an obscure lieutenant in the United States Navy to Commander-in-Chief in fourteen years with very little technical competence.” And yet, Trump assuredly shares Kennedy’s professed lack of technical competence.

While the military has been praised, no such praise has been extended to our intelligence services. In fact, they have been disparaged. Nevertheless, Iran has steadfastly maintained that it was not developing nuclear weapons, and we have no reports from U.S. Intelligence that an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. However, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Iran was only weeks away from an operational bomb. Of course, we do not know what intelligence supports the assertion, but we do know that Bibi has uttered that “weeks away” mantra many times over the last decade. It would seem that Trump accepts Israeli intelligence, or at least Netanyahu’s assertions, over our own intelligence. I find it troubling that we seem to have outsourced our intelligence to a foreign country.

It is also troubling that no intelligence — U.S. or Israeli — was presented to Congress prior to the attack. Moreover, the War Powers Act of 1973 might suggest that letting Congress know about a planned bombing of another country is, at the very least, a courtesy. Gosh, even Bush Jr. brought the invasion of Iraq to a vote in Congress. The intelligence was wrong, but…

We will soon start to get reports about how much the bombing has impeded Iran’s ability to build a nuclear bomb. Will the assertions be based on U.S. or Israeli intelligence? Why should we trust either of them?

We bombed Iran even though that country presented no imminent threat to our territorial safety. The decision fits in with an “Israel First” policy, and the operation should increase Israeli safety, but it also seems to signal that we will give an even freer rein to Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. If we so blithely accept Israel’s assertions about existential threats that we bomb Iran, must we also unquestioningly accept what they say about the importance to them of Gaza and the West Bank?

The bombings are expected to disrupt oil flows and distributions. It certainly will if Iran retaliates by successfully closing off the Strait of Hormuz. World oil prices will increase. Russia routinely benefits whenever oil costs more. Was strengthening Russia part of the goal?

Iran can retaliate by attacking our military assets in the Middle East, but it does not have the power to attack the territorial United States except, perhaps, in isolated acts of physical sabotage. It may have the ability for cyberattacks on our infrastructure, such as our antiquated power grid that the present administration ignores. However, the source of a cyberattack is often unclear. If there are such actions in the coming weeks, Iran will undoubtedly be blamed. This is an opportunity for other countries who want a weaker America to launch cyberattacks against us with Iran as their cover. And yes, I am thinking about Russia again.

Our officials say that they are only trying to end the Iranian nuclear bomb program and are not seeking regime change. I understand why they say that. During the campaign Trump and his acolytes were adamant that we were going to be out of the nation-building business, and yet, regime change inevitably leads to nation-building. In short, the proclamation that we do not seek a change is likely a lie. Some reports suggest that the Iranian people are fed up with the Ayatollah and want regime change. Is this true? And what would regime change in Iran look like? An autocrat often replaces an autocrat. Moreover, change often comes only after an ugly civil war in which other countries intervene directly or covertly. Change often spawns terrorist groups such as ISIS. What are the odds that a new Iran would be peaceful and cooperative?

We say that we seek to negotiate with either the new or the old Iran. If you were Iran, would you trust negotiations with the United States? You might conclude that nuclear weapons are the most sensible protection for yourself.

Other consequences of the bombing:

Language precision has suffered another blow. (It has already been almost fatally undermined by Trump himself.) Now comes Vance who says that we are not at war with Iran, but with Iran’s nuclear program. Huh? Trump says that we “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capacity. The next day the administration says that Iran’s nuclear ability has been “severely damaged.” Making me wonder again about the quality of a Yale education, Vance says he does not understand the difference.

Did DOGE have a role in the planning for the bombing to prevent the ever-present threat of waste, fraud, and abuse?

When all is said and done, isn’t it a good thing if the bombing operation actually has prevented Iran from getting nuclear weapons?