Seemingly with one voice, Democrats have denounced the administration’s attack on Iran as “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” But the Democrats’ views on legality vary wildly, depending on who is in the White House. My friend Ilan Wurman, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, points out the obvious parallel between Iran and Libya:
If it’s constitutional to bomb Libya per the Obama Administration’s OLC framework, directly resulting in the capture and death of Gaddafi, then it’s hard to see how Iran is any different. Ditto for Venezuela, by the way.
Now, there was a U.N. resolution authorizing the attacks… https://t.co/bsHTi3KKgr
— Ilan Wurman (@ilan_wurman) February 28, 2026
Here are excerpts from the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel that concluded Obama’s air strikes on Libya were legal:
Earlier opinions of this Office and other historical precedents establish the framework for our analysis. As we explained in 1992, Attorneys General and this Office “have concluded that the President has the power to commit United States troops abroad,” as well as to “take military action,” “for the purpose of protecting important national interests,” even without specific prior authorization from Congress. Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. 6, 9 (1992) (“Military Forces in Somalia”). This independent authority of the President, which exists at least insofar as Congress has not specifically restricted it, see Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, 18 Op. O.L.C. 173, 176 n.4, 178 (1994) (“Haiti Deployment”), derives from the President’s “unique responsibility,” as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive, for “foreign and military affairs,” as well as national security. Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 188 (1993); U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1, § 2, cl. 2.
***
This understanding of the President’s constitutional authority reflects not only the express assignment of powers and responsibilities to the President and Congress in the Constitution, but also, as noted, the “historical gloss” placed on the Constitution by two centuries of practice. Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 414. “Our history,” this Office observed in 1980, “is replete with instances of presidential uses of military force abroad in the absence of prior congressional approval.” Presidential Power, 4A Op. O.L.C. at 187; see generally Richard F. Grimmett, Cong. Research Serv., R41677, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2010 (2011). Since then, instances of such presidential initiative have only multiplied, with Presidents ordering, to give just a few examples, bombing in Libya (1986), an intervention in Panama (1989), troop deployments to Somalia (1992), Bosnia (1995), and Haiti (twice, 1994 and 2004), air patrols and airstrikes in Bosnia (1993-1995), and a bombing campaign in Yugoslavia (1999), without specific prior authorizing legislation.
The Democrats’ assertions about the law–they don’t actually make arguments–are frivolous.
Unlike Ilan, I don’t take “international law” seriously, and I give zero credence to the United Nations. The job of the President is to defend American national security, period. And I would add that Iran posed approximately a million times more danger to our security than did Libya.
