Donald Trump expands his war on truth to Iran

The below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial.

It was hard for me to ponder Donald Trump’s attack on Iran without thinking of this:

In the immediate aftermath of the US bombing raid on Iranian nuclear facilities, a careful evaluation of the mission and its purported success was impossible because Trump and his team lie.

We can surely state—as have Democratic and Republican critics of the strike—that the assault violated both the Constitution, which hands Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which compels the president to obtain specific authorization from Congress before launching a military strike (unless the United States is attacked) and which, unfortunately, has often been breached by Republican and Democratic presidents.

We can also acknowledge there’s no way to judge the full results of a military action so quickly. Even if the US knocked out these nuclear sites, we can’t know what the consequences will be. “Cry ‘havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war,” Shakespeare wrote. The 2003 invasion of Iraq looked like a success until it didn’t—and years of chaos and civil war ensued that consumed the lives of about 4,500 American troops and an estimated 200,000 Iraqi civilians. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan routed the Taliban and dismantled the support system for al-Qaeda. But then came 20 years of fighting—and the loss of about 2,500 American soldiers and the spending of $2.3 trillion. For what? Throwing a strong first punch doesn’t always end the matter in war. There’s an old military saying: The enemy gets a vote.

As of now, the bombing raid has not yielded a larger war. But the dust has yet to settle. Iran has many avenues of retaliation available. Its counter may come soon, or in a while, or never at all. On Monday, it lobbed missiles at a US military base in Qatar and caused no reported injuries, in what was considered a just-for-show response. A few hours later, Trump issued a social media post announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. But the New York Times reported that a spokesperson for the Israeli military declined to confirm—or even comment on—Trump’s statement. The newspaper noted, “this is all a fluid and unclear situation.” (On Tuesday, Trump criticized both Israel and Iran for actions that were inconsistent with the ceasefire, as the fragile truce appeared to be holding.)

However this shakes out, one reasonable expectation is that the raid will convince Iran that now more than ever it needs a nuclear weapon. Or perhaps a large cache of biological and chemical weapons—and an armada of advanced drones to deliver them. Or that it should answer with asymmetrical warfare—that is, acts of terrorism. There likely will be uncertainty on this front for some time. Don’t break out the champagne yet. (For a good preliminary and skeptical look at the US attack, check out this day-after thread posted by Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert.)

Moreover, we can’t believe anything Trump and his crew say about the strike. In announcing the attack, Trump declared Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely and fully obliterated.” But the next morning, Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the nuclear facilities had sustained “extremely severe damage and destruction.” That’s not annihilation. And other senior administration officials that day conceded that they did not yet have a read on what was left or even the whereabouts of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. It was possible that Iran had moved enriched uranium and crucial equipment prior to the bombing raid. (Iran reportedly had no bomb-grade uranium but possessed uranium enriched far more than necessary for civilian use.)

The Trump gang even pulled out an old, discredited playbook: misrepresenting or ignoring intelligence. The intelligence community had been clear on Iran’s nuclear program. In March, it released its annual threat assessment, which stated: “We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so.” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, during congressional testimony that month, said the same.

But that conclusion did not matter. Trump, who has often boasted that with his big brain he’s smarter than the generals and the analysts, didn’t feel compelled to even bother to claim that there was new intelligence that supported the case for attacking Iran. He just disregarded this assessment and pulled the trigger.

The morning after the attack, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked what fresh intelligence had been acquired since the March report that showed Iran was now developing nuclear weapons and, thus, posed a pressing threat. He responded, “The president has made it very clear that he’s looked at all the intelligence and come to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat.” In other words, there was no new intelligence. The president had tossed aside the intelligence community’s finding, and the administration didn’t care how this looked.

On Meet the Press, Vice President JD Vance was pushed on this point, as well. Asked if he and Trump trusted the intelligence community and its assessments, he replied, “Of course, we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts.” He was saying that Trump went to war on a hunch.

Maybe Vance realized this sounded ridiculous, for he added that the administration had gathered intelligence that the Iranians were “stonewalling” the ongoing negotiations. He did not elaborate. Yet on Friday, the day before the attack, the White House said it supported the ongoing European talks with Tehran, and earlier in the week Trump indicated he would give negotiations two weeks. It’s hard to believe that intel came in that indicated Iran was suddenly slow-walking the talks and, therefore, a strike had to be launched right away.

There was even double-talk about regime change—the bugaboo of the MAGA right with its association with so-called “forever wars.” Following the raid, Secretary of State Marco Rubio proclaimed, “This wasn’t a regime change move.” And Vance said, “Our view has been very clear that we don’t want a regime change.” But then Trump shot out a social media post:

It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!

So who knows? Trump Sycophant No. 1 Lindsey Graham quickly jumped on this with a post that said, “President Trump is spot on with his desire to make Iran great again by changing the regime.” With this coy reference to regime change, Trump was undermining his top officials and suggesting to Iran (and the world) that these assurances meant nothing.

After the attack, House Speaker Mike Johnson released a statement saying, “The military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.” It actually was a clear reminder of the opposite. Trump had indicated he was willing to give diplomacy a chance. Then he didn’t. He said the targets were completely destroyed. Maybe not. His team insisted the attack was not part of a war of regime change. He signaled it might be. How should other nations in the future—friends or foes—regard his statements? How should we? If Iran were now willing to engage in diplomacy, how could it cut a deal with a man whose word (or social media posts) means nothing? A major victim of this attack is American credibility.

“In war,” Aeschylus said, “truth is the first casualty.” Trump long ago killed the truth. Lies and disinformation are his most treasured weapons. Consequently, he paved the path to this war with erratic statements, disingenuousness, and dishonesty. Whatever the impact of the attacks on Iran’s nuclear program—we can’t believe what Trump will say about this—his deployment of such a toxic mix is unlikely to make the world a safer place.