Goldberg Examines Trump's Iran Strategy and Constitutional Boundaries
In a recent commentary, Jonah Goldberg addresses the Trump administration's stance on Iran, advocating for regime change while raising critical questions about constitutional processes. Published on March 1, 2026, the article delves into the complexities of U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump.
Advocacy for Regime Change in Iran
Goldberg begins by stating his clear support for regime change in Iran, describing the Islamic regime as a brutal entity engaged in murder, torture, and terrorism since 1979. He notes that most Iranians oppose the regime, but face severe repression for expressing dissent. The regime's long-standing hostility toward the United States adds to the case for action, according to Goldberg.
Unanswered Questions on Military Planning
Despite his support, Goldberg points out two major unresolved issues. First, he questions whether the Trump administration has a viable plan for military success and post-conflict stability in Iran. With the U.S. amassing significant military power in the region, similar to levels seen before the Iraq war, there is little public debate or transparency. Goldberg emphasizes that a potential full-scale attack would be one of the least-debated voluntary wars in history, lacking congressional hearings or authorization.
Constitutional Concerns Over War Powers
The second issue revolves around constitutional authority. Goldberg argues that without congressional approval, any war with Iran would be illegal. He compares it to entering someone's home without permission, stating that the default is prohibition unless expressly allowed. This highlights Congress's role in declaring war, as outlined in the Constitution, and criticizes its failure to act.
Broader Implications for Presidential Power
Goldberg extends his analysis to other areas, such as tariffs, where Trump has faced legal challenges. He notes that Trump often justifies actions based on their perceived necessity, sidestepping questions of authority. For instance, when the Supreme Court overturned Trump's tariffs, he attacked the justices as unpatriotic, illustrating what Goldberg calls "Critical Trump Theory"—where any opposition is seen as malign.
Systemic Checks and Balances
The article underscores the importance of checks and balances in the U.S. system. Goldberg warns that supporting presidential overreach for favored policies sets a dangerous precedent, allowing future presidents to act unilaterally on unpopular issues. He stresses that Congress holds exclusive powers to tax and declare war, while the executive branch executes these decisions, ensuring no single branch dominates.
Conclusion on Policy and Principle
In conclusion, Goldberg reiterates his belief that removing the Iranian regime could benefit both nations, but insists it must be done constitutionally. Even if Trump's approach were effective, he asserts that congressional approval is non-negotiable. This stance reflects a broader commitment to upholding constitutional principles over political convenience.
