Trump’s Attack on Fordow: An Unconstitutional Escalation and Its Far-Reaching Implications

On June 21, 2025, President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, a heavily fortified site buried beneath a mountain near the holy city of Qom.

Announcing the attack on social media, Trump declared, “A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.”

The strike was part of a broader operation targeting three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan—escalating an already tense conflict between Israel and Iran, which had been exchanging airstrikes for over a week. This unilateral action, executed without congressional approval, has sparked widespread debate over its constitutionality, the motivations behind it, and its potential to ignite a full-scale war.

While the administration claims the strike was necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, critics argue it was an unprompted and illegal act driven by foreign interests, particularly Israel’s, rather than American security needs.

The Unconstitutional Nature of the Attack

The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. Yet, Trump’s decision to strike Fordow bypassed this requirement entirely, marking a significant overreach of executive power.

Unlike defensive actions responding to an imminent threat, this attack was a deliberate offensive operation against a sovereign nation, constituting a de facto declaration of war by action rather than legislation. The administration has not presented evidence of an immediate danger to the U.S. or its allies, undermining claims that the strike falls within the president’s authority to protect national security.

Historically, presidents have justified military actions without congressional approval by citing the War Powers Act or framing them as limited operations. However, the strike on Fordow—a key component of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—crosses a threshold into overt warfare.

Senator Bernie Sanders condemned the move, stating at a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, “The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. This attack is grossly unconstitutional.” Legal scholars echo this sentiment, arguing that the absence of congressional authorization renders the action illegal under domestic law.

The lack of transparency compounds the issue. It remains unclear whether other Iranian nuclear facilities, such as Natanz and Esfahan, remain operable post-strike, as intelligence assessments are incomplete. This uncertainty highlights the premeditated nature of the attack, which was not a spontaneous response but a calculated escalation.

Iran’s Nuclear Program: Deterrence or Danger?

Iran’s nuclear program has been a flashpoint in international relations for decades. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is permitted to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but is barred from developing nuclear weapons. Tehran insists its program, including the Fordow facility, serves civilian needs like energy and medical research. The U.S. and Israel, however, have accused Iran of covertly seeking nuclear arms—a claim unsupported by definitive evidence from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitors Iran’s compliance with the NPT.

Fordow, buried 80-90 meters underground, is designed to withstand attacks and has been used to enrich uranium. While enrichment levels have at times exceeded those required for civilian use, U.S. intelligence, including statements from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, indicates Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and has not resumed it. Trump’s justification—that Iran was on the verge of producing a bomb—rests on a shaky premise, bolstered by Israeli assertions rather than concrete intelligence.

If Iran were pursuing nuclear capabilities, it could be interpreted as a deterrence strategy, mirroring the logic of other nuclear powers like the U.S., Russia, and Israel. Israel, notably, possesses an estimated 200 nuclear warheads but has never signed the NPT, facing no sanctions and receiving $3.8 billion annually in U.S. aid. This disparity fuels Iran’s narrative of Western hypocrisy, a grievance shared by many Arab nations.

Why Iran Hates the U.S. and Israel

Iran’s animosity toward the U.S. and Israel is deeply rooted in history. In 1953, the U.S. and Britain orchestrated a coup to oust Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry, reinstalling the Shah as a Western-aligned autocrat. This intervention sowed decades of resentment, culminating in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the Shah and established an anti-American theocracy under Ayatollah Khomeini. The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), further entrenching hostility.

Israel’s role emerged later, driven by its opposition to Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and its covert operations against Iran, including assassinations and cyberattacks. The chant “Death to America,” often cited by Trump as justification, is a symbolic rejection of U.S. policies—sanctions, military presence, and support for Israel—rather than a literal threat. Iran’s opposition to Israel also stems from its advocacy for Palestinian rights and view of Israel as an occupying power, a stance resonating across the Arab world.

The False Premise of the Attack

Trump framed the strike as a preemptive measure, citing Iran’s alleged intent to use nuclear weapons against Israel or the U.S. In a press conference, he referenced “Death to America” chants and claimed, “Iran cannot be allowed to threaten our allies or our homeland.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reinforced this, warning that Iran could produce a bomb “within months.” Yet, these assertions lack substantiation. U.S. intelligence has not confirmed an active Iranian weapons program, and the strike appears unprompted by any immediate provocation.

Critics argue the attack aligns with Israel’s long-standing goal of regime change in Iran, part of the “Clean Break” strategy from the 1990s and the broader “Greater Israel” project to neutralize regional rivals. The U.S. has a history of such interventions—backing the 1953 coup and supporting the Shah until 1979’s revolution disrupted those plans. The current push suggests a renewed attempt to reshape Iran’s government, despite the 1979 outcome.

Israel’s Influence and Netanyahu’s Motivations

Israel has been a driving force behind the strike. Netanyahu, facing corruption charges for bribery and fraud, has a personal stake in perpetuating conflict. By keeping Israel on a war footing, he rallies nationalist support and delays his trial, a tactic noted by Israeli security officials critical of his leadership. His government had planned strikes on Iran independently, pressuring Trump to act. Initially favoring diplomacy, Trump shifted course, raising questions about coercion or ideological alignment with Israeli interests over American ones.

The U.S. has spent trillions and lost lives in Middle East conflicts often tied to Israel’s security—think Iraq and Afghanistan—yet reaps terrorist attacks and regional instability in return. Some, including within the intelligence community, suspect these incidents, including potential false flags, serve as catalysts for expanding domestic security measures like the Patriot Act, eroding civil liberties under the guise of safety.

Domestic and International Reactions

The attack has fractured U.S. politics. The conservative movement is split: Trump loyalists like Senator Lindsey Graham praise the strike, while “America First” advocates like Steve Bannon decry it as a betrayal of non-interventionist promises, warning of national division. Leftists, particularly grassroots figures like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, oppose it vehemently, though the Democratic establishment remains cautious, reflecting bipartisan support for Israel.

Internationally, reactions are harsh. The Arab League labeled Israel’s actions a “violation of international law,” while Russia and China cautioned against regional chaos. Even allies like the UK and France expressed unease, though tempered by diplomatic restraint.

Future Prognosis: Retaliation and False Flags

Iran has vowed retaliation, leveraging its ballistic missiles and proxies like Hezbollah. The strike’s repercussions could include attacks on U.S. bases or Israeli cities, escalating into broader conflict. If Iran hesitates, fears persist of a false flag operation—akin to the Gulf of Tonkin or Iraq’s WMD claims—to justify further U.S. involvement. Such a war would drain resources and lives, echoing past Middle East quagmires.

Media Complicity and Echoes of 2003

The U.S. media has largely backed the administration’s narrative, framing the strike as a security necessity while downplaying its illegality. This mirrors 2003, when outlets amplified false WMD claims about Iraq. Complicity with Israeli interests, driven by lobbying and political pressure, stifles critical analysis, risking public manipulation as major catalysts—real or staged—loom.

A Risky Precedent

Trump’s attack on Fordow, unconstitutional and unprompted, prioritizes foreign interests over American ones, contradicting his past criticism of Obama’s Iran policy. It serves Netanyahu’s agenda while endangering U.S. security and stability. Diplomacy remains viable, yet the path forward hinges on resisting escalation and reevaluating alliances. Without course correction, America risks another endless war, driven not by necessity but by external agendas and domestic missteps.