President Trump Declares War Against Iran
Podcast: Download
Darrell Castle talks about the war, declared by President Trump, against the nation of Iran. Does he have Constitutional authority to declare war; why would he do so; and what does it mean?
Transcription / Notes
PRESIDENT TRUMP DECLARES WAR AGAINST IRAN
Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 6th day of March in the year of our Lord 2026. My beat is war today and war is obviously the most important story in the world right now as President Trump, unilaterally it seems, decided to make war against a nation that apparently had not harmed the U.S. and was not a threat to the U.S.
Why then did President Trump do it. I’ll give my thoughts on that but first let’s look at what he did. The U.S. spent a few months building up forces in the Middle East region while negotiating or pretending to negotiate a settlement. The U.S. demands became increasingly more difficult for the Iranians to comply with including give up the use of peaceful nuclear power except for medical purposes. Surrender all enriched uranium that you currently possess and allow international inspection. Give up all offensive missiles and drones. Cease all support for your terrorist proxies across the region. Finally, you must change your head of state and give up your oppressive theocratic government.
Well, those are some bitter pills for a sovereign country to swallow and some people believe they were designed to lure the Iranians into complacency while a serious attack was always the plan. The battle forces assembling in the region would have said to me were I head of state in Iran, prepare for serious war. I would have made defensive preparations such as moving my leadership and especially myself to a safe area. Iran didn’t do that and with the Ayatollah’s rejection of the peace proposal on Friday, he was dead within 24 hours.
Once again, the U.S. war machine and the high-tech war fighting ability of the U.S. are amazing and a demonstration for the world. Two carrier battle groups including the largest warship in the world. Two hundred fighter jets which, by the way, cost $10,000 for each hour of flight operations so if they were all in the air at once which they often were, that’s $2 million per hour. The last time I looked these figures up it cost about $25 million per day to keep a carrier battle group at sea and in-flight ops. Fifty thousand U.S. personnel, we are told, are currently engaged in combat.
Six U.S. soldiers are known dead having been killed in Kuwait from an Iranian missile or drone strike. It seems that the Iranians misread he reactions of their neighbors because they reacted by attacking everyone in the region, thus driving the entire region into a military alliance with the U.S. The U.S. at the time of this recording has launched over 2000 sorties against Iran and the Iranians have fired over 500 missiles and over 2000 drones about 10% of which get through,. Iran attacked U.S. bases and civilian targets in countries including Israel, The Gulf Arab States, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. Only one has been fired at Turkey even though the U.S. has bases in Turkey. These figures don’t consider the Israeli attacks which were, of course supplied by the U.S. for the most part. The arrangement was apparently that Israel would attack command and control systems and assassinate personnel including the head of state while the U. S. attacked the ability of Iran to retaliate with missiles and drones.
So, does the President of the United States have the Constitutional authority to take the nation to war. My short answer is no but ever since the Korean War the U.S has held the view that as Commander-in-Chief the President can constitutionally command the military to do what he wants but that is not my view and it was not the view of the founders. Commander-in-chief means that once war is declared by congress he runs it. Our system of government does not allow one individual to put the entire population at risk by unilaterally and individually making war.
What about the War Powers Resolution passed in 1973 which gives the President authority to commit troops to battle anywhere in the world for 90 days without congressional approval. Anyway, he said he briefed the 8 leaders of congress known as the gang of 8. My opinion is that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. No one seems to care anymore what that document says or what it means and very few want to be limited by its words. So, to prevent the restraint it requires, congress passed a resolution essentially amending it and as I said that is unconstitutional.
However, I admit that the resolution is what he used and even though it is misused and misapplied it gives him a pretty good argument for unlimited power. Most in congress will no longer argue that the President does not have authority to do what he has done. So, having looked at what he did now we ask why he did it. Part of the answer was the usual i.e. the Iranians are terrible people who arrest a protester and hang him the next day. Prison guards routinely rape virgin girls who are arrested by the moral police because they believe that when they murder the girls they will be barred from heaven.
Most of the explanation he gave had to do with nuclear weapons. Although just a few months ago he “obliterated” their nuclear program they were, he said, rebuilding it. The International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN said that Iran was enriching to 60% and only nuclear armed countries did that. Iran was supplying the whole hostile world including Russia with drone and missile technology. My understanding is that Iran’s hypersonic technology came from China. There is an elephant in the room that he did not mention and that is Israel. This entire war is so obviously at the behest of Israel that I can’t understand why the U.S. is not a little humiliated by it. Netanyahu said publicly that what Israel and the U.S. are doing is something he has dreamed of doing for 40 years.
The real reason diplomacy could not work was not any of the things listed but something Marco Rubio announced to reporters on Monday.
“It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel, or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States. We knew there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that would precipitate an attack on American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after Iran before Israel launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
So, if you reason this out and apply logic the reason we attacked Iran, killed many civilians, destroyed much infrastructure was that if we hadn’t our ally would have gone rogue and launched its own war thus exposing the U.S. to much higher casualties. In that sense, then operation Epic Fury was an act of self-defense, against Israel. The nation of Israel puts Israel first so I wonder why the U.S. won’t do the same.
Why won’t U.S. leaders tell our ally you launch your jets which you got from us and you will lose all American support and all-American bases in the Middle East or you can restrain your murderous impulses and remain our ally. The answer to that question probably explains the whole war but who knows the answer for sure. Maybe the answer is in the Epstein files but who knows. I know that when JFK gave Israel a firm no on their development of nuclear weapons he didn’t live long and LBJ quickly reversed his decision.
So, whatever the relationship between U.S. presidents and Israeli leaders throughout Israel’s history President Trump is inclined to listen to Bibi and neocons in America rather than his Maga base. He promised the Maga people he would not start another disastrous, stupid, pointless, and very costly Middle East war but here we are. It appears that for the second time in President Trump’s second term he used negotiations as a cover for a decision already made to go to war. Launching a military strike during negotiations could have the long-lasting effect of destroying trust in U.S. diplomacy so it’s risky.
Another reason for this that I admit is not obvious but this attack is an attack on China and Russia as well as the other BRICS. The U.S. does not want WWlll in the traditional sense because in today’s nuclear world that would result in a worldwide catastrophe with no winners, only losers. Instead, today’s war is about trade, money, commerce, etc. Who gets to run the world order of today. World orders come and go and they have throughout the centuries. In fact, the world order that emerged in 1648 formed by the Peace of Westphalia or the treaty by that name makes the most sense to me. It lasted It ended the 30 years war in which Europe was devastated and starving. It lasted from 1648 to 1803 when it was destroyed by Nepoleon. The treaty involved much of old Europe including the Holy Roman Empire and it allowed a world in which nations agreed they would stop unprovoked attacks on each other and would not assassinate each other’s leaders. It brought peace and allowed the people of Europe to prosper and be fed again.
Eventually, world orders and peace agreements always break down into violence and bloodshed. Today, the new order of the world is trying to form and it has devolved into proxy wars, economic wars, cyber wars, biological wars, sabotage wars, and information wars. Russia and China resent U.S. dominance and attempt to topple it while the U. S. will hold it by any means necessary.
In conclusion, I don’t know anything about this war for certain but I try to use logic to make the best guess possible. I know that China has stopped export of oil and gas and restricted its domestic use. China imports 11 million barrels per day 45% of which comes through the gulf. Perhaps Chinese tankers could buy the new U.S. provided insurance thus bypassing Lloyds of London which has run shipping for over 100 years. Could that result in a new U.S., China, Russia alliance, who knows.
Finally, folks, I close with the words of Ron Paul now 90 years old but as wise as ever. “Here’s a plan: End this today. Return the destroyed U.S. bases to the countries where they are located. And just come home. That is what a real “America First” movement looks like.”
At least that’s the way I see it,
Until next time folks,
This is Darrell Castle,
Thanks for listening.
