Brian Finucane

Bringing out the Fox weekend host

Never mind the U.S. Constitution or the UN Charter, Trump is helping Bibi realize his dreams.

Wow. Congrats!

"a war of choice, a war of vanity, an illegal war"

Pentagon offers no evidence to support claim it attacked Iran in defense The Trump administration’s effort to construct a case for war after shots started flying has few historical parallels.

Flagrantly illegal in other words

www.politico.com/news/2026/03...

Trump Says War Could Last Weeks and Offers Contradictory Visions of New Regime

“What we did in Venezuela, I think, is the perfect, the perfect scenario,” Mr. Trump said.”

As I told @lbc.co.uk today, the Venezuela decapitation model is what Trump has in mind for Iran.

www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/u...

Good message from @schiff.senate.gov.

New: Pentagon briefers acknowledged to congressional staff in a briefing Sunday that Iran was not planning to strike US forces or bases in the Middle East unless Israel attacked Iran first, multiple sources to @NatashaBertrand , @jmhansler & me. Why this matters: It undercuts Trump admin’s argument on Saturday that Iran was planning to potentially strike the US preemptively & posed an imminent threat:

No legal basis under either U.S. or international law to attack Iran.

No attack upon the U.S., nor imminent threat of one, nor any congressional authorization.

And the USG ought to be able to restrain the principal recipient of U.S. military assistance from provocations.

All utterly lawless.

An illegal, unnecessary, and expanding regional war—due to the whims of one man.

I hate to think about the “47 years” aspect…and yet.

Notable.

But still some need for greater public education on this front.

Anyway, looking forward to filling up the tank with some more of that great $1.99 gas this week…

Well said

Indeed

Beyond being required by the U.S. Constitution, if you happen to think that war with Iran is so great, then why not publicly make the case and put it to a vote of the people’s elected representatives?

Good piece!

Ha! I was already reading it.

You and me both

If you’re talking in terms of the overall attack on Iran, DOJ’s OLC likely provided a verbal if not written permission slip for the use of force for domestic law purposes—which DoD/OGC and other military lawyers would take as binding.

What Iranian “nuclear weapons?”

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson writing to James Madison, extolled the Constitution for instituting “one effectual check on the Dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body.”

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Judgment of the international Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany.

I emphasize this provision of the War Powers Resolution because it stands as an authoritative statement by the legislature of its views of presidential war powers—a position that is much more restrictive than the executive branch's own extremely permissive doctrine.

"That's the way it is."

Says the man who launched an illegal and unnecessary war about the likelihood of further US fatalities.

Keir Starmer on X: "My update on the situation in the Middle East. https://t.co/DvsOVcTDMy" / X My update on the situation in the Middle East. https://t.co/DvsOVcTDMy

Prime Minister Starmer's statement is worth watching, including for the contrast to his US counterpart.

Unsurprisingly, he places great emphasis on international law.

(Whether you buy the int'l law argument is another matter.)

x.com/keir_starmer...

Let Them Eat War

The administration’s affordability pivot:

open.spotify.com/track/0734v4...

The argument (such as it is) rests on old AQ dudes relocating to Iran around a decade or so ago.

And no it isn't credible, at least to this former AUMF attorney.

The argument (such as it is) seems to rest of the "harbored" prong. Which is past tense. And the argument ignores the purpose specified in the final section.

Yeah, I remember that well.

war on a whim