In Tehran, Iran, two women breathlessly climb to the top of a nearby building to watch, celebrate and cheer as they see smoke rising from the residence of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s self-styled “Supreme Leader” who we now know died in that blast. Meanwhile in other parts of Iran, bare-headed women, who have shed their legally mandated hijabs, light cigarette (also something outlawed by the now tumbling regime) with photos of Khamenei as a further sign of defiance. All across Iran, Iranians dance in the street as bombs continue to fall. Meanwhile 6,000 some odd miles away, American politicians frown and fret over the method in which the Iranian people, and the world has been freed from the number 1 source of terrorism across the globe.
The Ends…
The now crippled Khamenei regime massacred thousands of its own people in January (3,117 admitted by the regime, but up to 30,000 by other estimates). Khamenei, himself ordered his soldiers to “crush the protests by any means necessary”.
This wasn’t a stable government minding its own business. This was a Collectivist regime in its death spiral, lashing out at its own Individuals. The regime funded Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis – proxy wars that killed Americans and destabilized an entire region. They pursued nuclear weapons despite every diplomatic off-ramp offered.
So, the Ends: the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism is decapitated. Its supreme leader, defense minister, IRGC commander, and security council secretary are dead. Iranian citizens are in the streets waving pre-revolution flags and chanting for freedom. A city has reportedly been liberated from the IRGC by its own residents.
Who could argue that the Ends are not good?
Do these Ends justify the Means?
The saying “the ends justify the means” is one of the most abused phrases in political discourse . What people actually mean when they use it is: “The end I want justifies any means.” That’s a very different statement, and a dangerous one.
The proper question isn’t whether any End justifies any Means. It’s whether this specific End justified these specific Means. And that requires looking at the Means honestly.
The Means: a massive joint military strike, conducted without formal Congressional authorization, that killed Iran’s leadership – along with over 200 Iranians, including reports of a girls’ school hit. Iran retaliated by striking U.S. bases and allies across the Gulf. The conflict is still unfolding.
Was Congressional authorization the proper Means? That’s where the Libertarian purists and the Beltway lawyers both miss the point.
The War Powers Game — A Bipartisan Fraud
Let’s look at the historical receipts. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was supposed to restrain presidents from dragging the country into unauthorized wars. In practice, it’s been a tool both parties use when it’s politically convenient and ignore when it’s not.
The scorecard — presidents acting militarily without Congressional authorization:
- Truman (D): Korea. Used a U.N. resolution, never asked Congress. Called it a “police action.”
- Kennedy/Johnson (D): Vietnam escalation. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on a disputed incident.
- Nixon (R): Secret bombing of Cambodia. Congress explicitly opposed it. He did it anyway.
- Reagan (R): Grenada, El Salvador. No authorization.
- Bush Sr. (R): Panama, Somalia. No authorization (though he did get an AUMF for the Gulf War).
- Clinton (D): Iraq, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo — all without Congressional approval. The Kosovo bombing campaign was a full NATO war.
- Obama (D): Libya in 2011. Argued bombing a sovereign nation didn’t count as “hostilities.” Dozens of drone strikes in Pakistan.
- Biden (D): Used the 2002 Iraq authorization — designed for Saddam Hussein — to justify killing Iranian-backed militiamen in 2024.
- Trump (R): Soleimani strike (2020), Syria strikes (2017), Iran nuclear strikes (2025), and now Operation Epic Fury — all without authorization.
That’s every president from both parties since WWII. The pattern is clear: the War Powers Resolution is a law that exists so politicians (lawyers) can wave it about when it suits them and file it away when it doesn’t. Democrats screaming about unauthorized war today were silent when Obama bombed Libya. Republicans defending Trump’s unilateral action were furious when Clinton hit Kosovo.
The law isn’t a principle. It’s a handle. And both sides grab it or drop it depending on whose guy is in the chair.
Massie, Paul, and the Libertarian Blind Spot
Credit where it’s due: Thomas Massie and Rand Paul are consistent. They opposed Obama’s actions, they opposed Trump’s actions, they’ll oppose whoever’s next. That consistency has value.
But consistency with a flawed principle is still flawed. The strict Constitutionalist position — that Congress must authorize every military action — assumes a world where deliberative bodies can respond to rapidly evolving threats with the speed that modern warfare demands. That world doesn’t exist.
More importantly, there’s a difference between holding a principle and holding a handle. When Massie posts “I am opposed to this War” while Iranians are tearing down statues of their oppressor and dancing in streets for the first time in 45 years — he’s holding a handle. The principle of Congressional oversight exists to protect Individuals from the Collective misusing military power against their interests. If the Individuals most affected are celebrating, the principle has been satisfied in substance even if the procedural box wasn’t checked.
Libertarianism’s fatal flaw has always been this: it treats process as sacred even when process produces worse outcomes for Individuals than action does. That’s not Individualism — it’s Collectivism wearing a different hat, where the Collective being served is the legal system itself.
The Tribal Sorting Machine
The YouGov poll tells you everything: 68% of Republicans approve, while only 10% of Democrats approve. The same action, the same dead dictator, the same people dancing in the streets — and your opinion is almost entirely predicted by which team jersey you’re wearing.
Lindsey Graham celebrates “freedom” — the same Graham who’d oppose this action if a Democrat ordered it. Bernie Sanders calls it an “illegal war” — the same Sanders who was silent when Obama’s drone program killed civilians in Pakistan for eight years. Both are reading from tribal scripts.
The honest actors — the ones thinking in principles — are the ones who break from their tribe. Fetterman, a Democrat, supported the strikes. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who could out-MAGA most of the party, called it a betrayal of the America First promise. Warren Davidson, a Republican, said “War requires Congressional authorization.” You don’t have to agree with any of them to respect that they evaluated the action instead of the actor.
Circle back to Tehran. A woman waves the pre-revolution Iranian flag — the lion and sun, banned since 1979. She’s not thinking about the War Powers Resolution. She’s not thinking about midterm implications. She’s thinking about freedom.
The question for Americans isn’t which tribe gets to claim credit for this moment or which tribe gets to condemn it. The question is simple: Are more Individuals free today than they were yesterday? The answer, for millions of Iranians, is yes.
Everything else is lawyers arguing over handles.