On Monday, the president’s lack of a plan in Iran was outlined in stark terms in a letter to Congress obtained by CBS News officially informing lawmakers of the strikes.

“Although the United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary,” Trump said in the letter.

U.S. forces “remain postured to take further action… to address further threats and attacks upon the United States or its allies and partners,” he continued.

The letter was sent under the War Powers Act, a 1973 resolution requiring the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces if Congress has not declared war. The deployment cannot last more than 60 days without congressional approval.

top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 185 points 8 months ago (42 children)

60 days is so fucking long to be able to operate without congressional approval.

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 98 points 8 months ago (24 children)

    Yeah, it was made at a time when the concept of a war was a months long preparation of deploying troops and moving assets into place. They didn't anticipate just attacking countries overnight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (15 children)

    This was a months- or weeks-long preparation. It’s been known for a while that the US was moving aircraft carriers towards Iran. This absolutely did not happen overnight.

    The BBC from 2026-02-20

    Edit: and earlier, Military.com from 2026-01-29

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (14 children)

    Its not unusual for US air assets and carriers to be in this region in general. You might want to look at the preparations for the invasion of Iraq if you want to know what an actual preparation for a war looks like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 8 months ago* (13 children)

    Right, and the massing of troops on the Ukrainian border by Russia was not a prelude to that invasion either. /s

    This was in no way a bolt from the blue. People knew this was coming. Did you even read the linked article?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    Yes. You are aware that February 20th wasn't "months ago" right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    But January 29th was over a month ago, and you can bet that this plan started before the news noticed and reported on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 8 months ago* (10 children)

    Its OK that you said a stupid thing and then pretended you didn't by changing the definition of what "stupid" is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    what? not them but they did add a source as early as January 29th.

    I'm lost, how is that redefining stupid?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    Because my argument is that this was not a well prepared war with adequate assets put into place in the region which would take months to do, much like was the case with the 2003 Iraq war. And their counter-argument to that was "look, someone dispatched a carrier to the middle east 33 days ago!"

    You tell me if you think that is stupid or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Okay, but can you see how that's not actually what you said?

    You just called it stupid.

    But with hindsight, do you think that carrier deployment unrelated?

    Because if it is, then some planning went into it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Okay, but can you see how that’s not actually what you said?

    You just called it stupid.

    He said, and I quote:

    Yeah, it was made at a time when the concept of a war was a months long preparation of deploying troops and moving assets into place

    Note the plural in "months".

    Then he added:

    You might want to look at the preparations for the invasion of Iraq if you want to know what an actual preparation for a war looks like.

    If you don't know, the prep for the 2003 invasion of Iraq took 18 months.

    Even the extremely rushed (due to the fact that Saddam was actively killing Kuwait) Desert Storm took almost 6 months to prepare.

    Note that Iraq is 1/3rd the size of Iran.

    But with hindsight, do you think that carrier deployment unrelated?

    It's not that it's unrelated. It's barely consequential considering the scale of the operation. And by "operation" I mean "the actual preparation that would normally take place if someone competent was responsible for the planning of the attack".

    The US has assets (including carriers) in the region practically non-stop. One more or less doesn't really change much in the context of them burning through ammo supplies, or the fact that @UnspecificGravity@piefed.social was 100% right in saying that this was completely rushed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    Does that article support the conclusion that Trumps attack on Iran was adequately planned?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    Do you have something to say there wasn't planning? Because that's your claim with 0 evidence, which beats their something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Sorry, my argument depends on reality that someone who isn't a moron can observe. If you haven't been able to discern a lack of preparation from all of the available evidence that we have been bombarded with over the last three days then nothing I say is going to pull your head out of your ass for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    No your point is that your trying to be the loudest voice.

    All you have are insults instead of anything of substance.

    Have the day you deserve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Half of US state capitals are in the middle of states because they were created at a time when travel times were large enough that you wanted to minimise them for political centres. I'm assuming this was around the same time so maybe it even took time to get congress together?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Oh, I can scroll up two comments. 1973. Scratch that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    The interstate system wasn’t completed until 1992. Speed limits were lower in the 1970s as well and vehicles were not designed to go 70+mph at that time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    They were designed for the faster speeds. Speeds were lowered to 55 mph in most of the country during the 1970s as a (perfectly rational) response to the OPEC oil embargoes in that decade. Lower speeds = lower fuel consumption per mile.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Yeah, that makes sense. I forgot the other important detail I was thinking about. Communications. While cell phones were a invented in the 1950s, I think, the technology didn’t start getting wide-spread usage until the 1990s and the internet didn’t exist either back in the 1970s. Sending out deployment orders took a lot longer to happen, just to track down personal and tell everyone. There probably now is just an app you install on your phone and most personal get notified instantly unless they are in a cell dead zone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    No, it was in the 1970s, for which 60 days was a reasonable amount of time to get soldiers into place in order to fight a war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    Doesn't that just mean that there is no need to bypass Congress. They can approve while the troops are getting in position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Yes, that is the entire point of the war powers act. It allows the president to quickly deploy troops to respond to issues and provides enough time for congress to approve the declaration of war once they are ready to go. Prior to this the US president was NOT permitted to deploy troops at all until congress declared war. The War Powers Act was an EXPANSION of presidential authority.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Wait until 60 days and we recall them for 24 hours just to turn around and... redeploy in the same place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    There hasn’t been a declared war since WWII so on this there’s not much difference than how we’ve operated since the 50’s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    And Congress can just retroactively make it legal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    He’ll probably use the AUMF from 9/11 and it might be legal since Iran funds and directly supports two terrorist organizations.

    Personally I think the legality isn’t as important since even if the supremes declare it illegal it won’t stop it. If congress really wants to stop this they’ll pull the funding for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    This is just a test to see if he can get away with it. Everything he does is poking the bear to see if it attacks. But, the ameribear is dead. He will be using this same method of bypassing Congress and the Supreme Court to declare martial law and take over the country as an official dictatorship.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 8 months ago*

    It's because americans are incapable of voting Libertarian. It has been quite clearly shown that neither Democrats or Republicans will let go of those war powers.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 97 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Wait... didn't Vance say a few days ago that the wars before were fought badly because of dumb presidents, how the fuck is this different!??

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Well, he has a concept of a plan, you see.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 8 months ago

    Oh shit, since this BOMBSHELL letter has dropped, I'm sure MAGA will MELT DOWN and someone will SLAM trump with a brutal TAKEDOWN.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    “Although the United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary,” Trump said in the letter.

    Clearly written by someone else. There is no way Mango Mussolini was this coherent.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Good to hear. Now I'm confident that the US definitely won't succumb to mission creep and get sucked into an interminable war that will end countless thousands of lives.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    People keep saying this is going to be America's next forever war, but there's a good chance we might just lose.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I am hoping a carrier is sunk. Everybody lives, but a huge hole in the thing and all the planes go with it. America is in desperate need of a kick to the nuts. Without that, America will continue to be a drunken bully.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    I don't even think you can say, "America," at this point; I think this 5 to 10 people at the top of the administration that thought they could repeat what they did in Venezuela. There are plenty of ghouls in both parties that have been dreaming of regime change in Iran, but even they wouldn't be stupid enough to think they could just bomb the country for a weekend, kill the Ayatollah, and move on. Intelligence officials at the Pentagon directly contradicted the administration's claim that Iran was planning an attack, and even John Fucking Bolton wrote an op-ed saying this was a bad idea. America is gonna get a kick in the nuts, but only a handful of people are actually responsible for this cluster-fuck, and they probably won't learn anything or face any consequences for their actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I'd like to expand on this thought. Its been bothering me.

    Even when we "lose" wars we Americans do not experience the destruction we impart on other nations.

    We bombed a school. No american school children will die in this war, but Iranian children already have.

    Americans will disapprove of this war but it will only affect them in limited ways, making large protests feel foolish when many are trying to scrape by to make rent, and we live under a dictator.

    I don't know what there is to be done. It makes me sick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    I feel you, but honestly, with this administration, who fucking knows what will happen. The Secretary of Defense is an alcoholic, the President is sundowning, and JD Vance appears to already be in hiding. This might end with our unconditional surrender to the next Ayatollah after we lose a ground invasion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    But jumping into a war with no clear objectives worked so well in Vietnam!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    So this was just an assassination.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    He's spent his whole life pointing at stuff he wants and telling other people to make it happen for him and getting everything he wants. He doesn’t know how to plan anything; he just knows how to be a rich asshole and bully people into giving him what he wants. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that he doesn’t have a plan for anything.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    he doesn’t have a plan for anything.

    He said he had "concepts of a plan" for health care on national television after nearly a decade railing about the fucking issue, and this idiot populace still re-elected him. It's clear at this point that not only does he not have a plan, but that to much of the voting populace that's completely fine and fucking dandy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    When he said that I thought that there was no way he was going to win and that there can’t be anyone stupid enough to vote for him, knowing full well that there were people stupid enough to vote for him after the thousands of other stupid, disqualifying things he’s done prior to that. Still can’t believe nothing can be done about the situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago

    We all know he didn’t author that.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Plan is as intended sign here sir and here and here

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago*

    Why are you asking him? Ask his boss, Netanyahu.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    There’s no way Trump wrote a letter, especially not using those words.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    The question is: did he even read it before it got sent over?

    It seems like having a staffer draft the letter isn't a huge deal, but a normal president would personally approve it, I imagine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Shit planning, depleting precision munition stockpiles and not listening to your best officers. Mango Mussolini requests a ceasefire and the Iranians understand the US is spending about a $1 billion daily and tell him to go pound sand. This is MAGA "winning." F-them.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Maybe stupid Americans shouldn't elect a guy that admitted he only had concepts of plans while standing next to a woman who laid her plans out for voters.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    This cum dump doesn't have a plan period.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Marco Rubio said what I assume is the actual truth. Israel told us they were going to carry out the attack, and the US agreed to go along with it at the last second.

    He also said what I think was a lie in the same explanation, that if Israel had attacked alone, then we knew Iran would attack the US and so we had to strike first to limit US casualties.

    It's a pathetic loser of a reason, that we can't stand up to Israel. No wonder everyone else in the Trump administration has been lying about it non-stop.

    Had Israel attacked alone and had we subsequently been attacked, do we really think there would have been far more US casualties? It seems dubious to me, based on the history, but I am not an expert.

    If Iran did attack us like that, then we'd have complete justification for joining at that point.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    The "if we don't attack them there, they'll attack us here" has been working as a great excuse for endless wars for as long as I can remember so I don't see why it wouldn't work on american voters this time

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Special Military Operation that was actually a 3 day operation

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    The red blotch admits Donny has no future.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Just the Epstein distraction is all

  • source
  • 29 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    4 comments in c/conservative@sh.itjust.works view that post