If the hive be disturbed by rash and stupid hands, instead of honey, it will yield us bees.

                                                                                                             Ralph Waldo Emerson

 The United States, along with Israel, has chosen to attack Iran, supposedly to depose the ruling regime and replace it with one with broader popular support and no inclination to support terrorism against other individuals or countries. Or to prevent an imminent threat. Or to act before Iran compiled huge numbers of missiles and drones. Or to vanquish Iran’s nuclear threat once and for all. Or, Israel was going to do it, so we needed to do it first. Administration officials have presented all of these reasons to justify the attack.

Donald Trump has been touting the regime change rationale, and admittedly the impulse to overthrow the current Iranian regime is understandable. The regime is oppressive and repressive, harsh and cruel, murdering thousands of its citizens to enforce its rule and sponsoring terrorism around the world. No tears need be shed if it is overthrown.

The American military may be performing brilliantly, although we can’t be sure even of that because we know only what they tell us. But the men directing the military–and they are men–are performing somewhat less so. This administration can’t even coordinate their stated justifications for starting this war.

It can’t be because the United States had to eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran because Trump said in June that “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

It isn’t because Iran was an “imminent threat,” because informed sources have denied that, and no proof has been given by the administration of such a threat.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly has been urging—perhaps pressuring would be a better term—Trump to act. According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the United States knew that Israel was going to act unilaterally, so it became necessary for the United States to ward off the inevitable Iranian reprisals against the United States–which came anyway.

Trump’s initial explanation was that this was a war of liberation and regime change. We need to ask, however, whether bombing Iran into submission is a realistic goal. It’s hard to see how the answer is yes. Bombing, after all, can be very effective in destroying infrastructure, military targets, air defensives and even civilian populations if they are targeted. Ultimately, however, wars are won on the ground, unless one chooses to use weapons of mass destruction. Is that what is being considered here?

If not, who or what is going to overthrow the regime? Is the United States contemplating sending in ground forces? Nothing so far indicates that that’s under consideration, although Trump has said he doesn’t rule it out. Israel is hardly in a position to invade Iran.

So, if the goal is in fact regime change, it would appear unlikely that American, Israeli or any other allied troops would be placed on the ground. In a brief address announcing the attacks early Saturday morning, however, Trump suggested that it would be up to the Iranian people to seize the opportunity to overthrow the regime:

“For many years,” he said, addressing the Iranian people, “you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want, so let’s see how you respond.”

If the Iranian people seize the opportunity, Iran could be on the brink of massive bloodletting as a civil war takes place. The Iranian government has shown no reluctance, under less dire circumstances, to murder its own citizens. How much more so would it respond to a popular uprising; and how well prepared is the Iranian opposition to take up arms against its government?

Leaving aside the efficacy of regime change given the means being employed, we have to deal with the question of the legality of the entire operation. This occasion is the third time in the past year that this administration has chosen to use military force in a major way. In the immediate instance, the administration reportedly did inform the “Gang of Eight”—a bipartisan group of congressional leaders—of its intent to carry out the attack. That action hardly constitutes a declaration of war by Congress, but nowadays that may be the best we can hope for.

The other basic question is why is the United States attacking Iran in the first place? According to news reports, negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program had been productive. Trump, however, reportedly wasn’t satisfied and was growing impatient. He wanted quicker progress—most likely submission on Iran’s part. Military force ought to be used as a last resort, not when diplomacy has not been exhausted.

Americans have a right to know why Trump picked this moment to attack Iran. The administration did next to nothing to prepare the American people for this war; no official statement of war aims has been given. We have a right to know as much as security will allow about the rationale for the timing and the intent of the action. We may not get it. Trump quite clearly sees himself as the sole decision maker with no concern for democratic or constitutional requirements.

Trump likes to refer to the military command as “my generals,” but they aren’t, any more than the Army is his army or navy vessels are his ships. He commands them. He is responsible for them and their actions. But he doesn’t own them.

Congress may choose—it will be no surprise if they do nothing given the continuing capitulation of congressional Republicans—to sanctify what Trump has done and is doing. It makes no difference. His actions are a clear violation of Article I, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have power…To declare war.”

We have no idea how long this conflict might last despite Trump’s predictions of four or five weeks. We still have no idea of the administration’s strategy or endgame even if regime change should occur. It’s not unreasonable to assume they have none. What regime would succeed the present one, and what assurance do we have that it won’t be worse?

The world, Israel and America may be better off as a result of this action. The danger is that if everything turns out for the better in the end—whatever that may mean—the stage will have been set for another president to seize the opportunity without consultation or consent under the Constitution, to undertake similar or even riskier actions. That’s a recipe for disaster, a disaster we may not yet avoid even in this instance.

It’s no secret that Donald Trump is impetuous and endowed with great self confidence. His exploit in Venezuela apparently has fed his regard for his own martial ability. In the final analysis, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Iran operation has less to do with national, regional or global security than it does with Donald Trump’s sense of messianic mission and to show his strength—because he can.

An historical note: As we celebrate the 250^th anniversary of our country, it’s ironic that this administration, which has repeatedly violated our Constitution and disparaged our heritage and traditions, should choose the occasion to undertake this illegal war.