it's up to the americans to change it if they want but, right now, the precedent is fairly clear that the president, as commander in chief, does in fact have the practical power consolidated in the office of president to unilaterally declare war, and obama and clinton have been as or more responsible for this as any republican. both sides will bitch about this, but it is strictly performative across the aisle, and there is in truth clearly a bipartisan consensus in support of consolidating presidential power.
this isn't my concern, it's an internal american political issue. as a non-american looking in, i see a bipartisan consensus that has developed since jfk that the president can in fact bypass congress to declare war, and trump is merely doing away with the last standing formal vestiges in asserting that consensus as precedent. it is up to the americans to decide if they want to legislate and codify existing consensus and precedent, or enforce centuries old laws that haven't been enforced in decades. usually, when laws are not enforced, they are removed and updated. but i am not an american and this is not my concern.
as a canadian, i'm concerned about international trade and to some extent about international law. the united states is of course not a treaty to the rome statute and, as the hegemon, is not accountable to any legal process or body. i am concerned about a concept of international order that isn't clearly written anywhere or enforced by any body. i am also concerned about the rights of secularists, apostates, socialists and atheists in iran, and am in solidarity with their struggle for self-determination.
it is these considerations, rather than issues of internal american politics, that would lead me to support a wholesale one-off obliteration of the iranian state, which means the wholesale destruction of the iranian ruling and governing structure and class, including but not limited to the overnight liquidation of the following:
- the iranian dictator
- the guardian council
- the iranian clerical class, including the judiciary
- the iranian political class
- the iranian military
- the irgc
- the iranian police
i do believe the american hegemon does actually have the power to disappear all of these things at once in a single decisive blow, like a terrible storm tearing down a spanish armada. this would in fact allow for an iranian revolution from the bottom up.
unlike iraq, this is ready to go in iran and might actually work. i expect to see many comparisons to iraq and would consider them ignorant and poorly formulated. i would prefer to compare the situation in iran to that of pre-revolutionary france.
i am not a clairvoyant and cannot predict the future. wars have high levels of uncertainty. it might fail, and any delay will give other state actors an ability to interfere. but it might work and it's worth trying if it's done decisively.
the ideological authors of these viewpoints are marx and trotsky and i am articulating a concept called "permanent revolution" that is fundamental to trotskyist political ideology. my own politics are more on the order of kropotkinism, but that was a long time ago and needs to be updated.
i would support arming the kurds to eliminate any remaining regime resistance and rebuild a democratic infrastructure for the implementation of secular iranian socialism. it is up to the iranian people to determine their own future.
i do not support the return of the shah, any move towards nationalism or fascism, the idea that the state can be taken in tact and converted or co-opted (it must be destroyed and rebuilt) or a long war involving the use of american or nato troops. oil and other natural resources in iran belong to iran.
i may also be concerned about the extent of israeli involvement, as that may destabilize the region and generate crazy people that want to wage jihad.