No, it is not illegal for a US president to authorize strikes like this. American hasn't formally declared war since WWII.
Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and no one, especially no one in the middle east - wants a nuclear armed Iran. America and its partners - and quite often its not-partners - have been working to stop Iranian uranium enrichment for a very long time.
As for "guarantees they will pursue nuclear weapons by all means" -- that's the point: they've already been doing so nonstop for decades.
In much of the middle east, Iran is detested, and a nuclear armed Iran is deeply feared throughout the region. Iran with nukes means the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to pursue nuclear weapons as well. Again, in vast swaths of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy.
"they've already been doing so nonstop for decades" - I would think it's not that complicated to make a nuclear bomb today, is it ? Technology has been there for almost 100 years already.
Your thinking would be wrong, then. Making nuclear weapons is ridiculously complicated, tedious, and requires access to loads of very specific technology.
I would actually love to read a bit about it. Like, let's say a reasonably sized developed country - say Australia for example, decides that making nukes it's a national priority. How long it would take them ?
> that worked really well in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan....
I think that was the plan. Israeli and american and turkish planes are now freely flying over Syria , iraq, (i assume also afghanistan) to conduct attacks. Iran is being set up as theater for long proxy war. The rest of middle east and libya is controlled by turkey & israel which seem to have complementary interests as proxies of the US. At the moment it appears the US/israeli dominance in the whole former Ottoman empire is strong, but inevitably (and quickly) we will see dozens of unconventional wars in the region (what we call terrorism)
President can authorize precision strikes and special ops if there’s imminent threat justification. I’m not arguing either way if this strike was justified, but there’s legal pathways for it. The congress rule is about declaring war.
A chaotic broken Iran is going to be a powder keg for the world that keeps erupting unless the US is willing to just glass the entire country. It only looks like a better outcome in the very short term.
This information is just a google search away, so I’ll assume you’re willfully ignorant. No it’s not illegal. It can go on for 60 days before requiring authorization by Congress.
Are you sure? He certainly engaged in a lot of military operations in several countries without Congress's approval. He also ramped up drone strikes dramatically.
None of those required congressional oversight. The US hasn't officially declared war since WW2. That's largely due to every administration since then finding clever wording to get around it. Did Obama do unethical things? Probably, geopolitics is not a game of right/wrong. Did Obama do anything illegal, nope. Same with Trump. (Yes, in this context I'm both-sidesing, but not every context: Trump wants to imprison/deport/kill me and people I love, there's no comparision, and he's too dumb to be a nazi but is absolutely an evil dictator. Obama never put crosshairs on the heads of US citizens for not being straight white christians or not kissing his ass.)
Because acting unsurprised means giving Trump a pass. It means normalizing awful things and normalizing hate and hurt. No one actually wants the world where he has no moral limits.
If the current regime stays in power, it's pretty much a guarantee that they will pursue nuclear weapons by all means available, in the future.
If the US / Israel want to topple the regime... that worked really well in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan....
Also, isn't it really illegal for a US president to authorize a strike like this without Congress ?