Bill Tallen

The Iranian regime has considered itself at war with us since 1979. After years of denials, they recently bragged to our diplomats about having enough highly enriched uranium to assemble a dozen nuclear weapons in a week or two, and they’ve always proclaimed their intent to destroy us. So, since March 1, 2026, America has finally decided to join the party.

War reporting is often inaccurate and misleading. Media sources these days almost always inject bias into even the simplest reports, and unlike a few generations ago, most journalists have little education or relevant experience to offer perspective. I’ll touch on a few examples of the misconceptions that result. 

First, there’s the question about the limits of presidential authority. Congressional enemies challenged the Trump administration’s authority to conduct this action, and failed, under the rules established by Congress itself three decades ago. 

The Constitution assigns to Congress the power to declare war, but declarations of war with a foreign nation have been few and far between. Starting with our “Quasi-War” with France in 1798, America has used military force outside our borders at least 44 times without a declaration of war, while war has been declared only 11 times. The current fight with Iran is not exceptional; it is
typical.

The War Powers Act of 1973 does not require a president to ask permission of Congress before using military force, nor even to notify Congress in advance. He must notify them within 48 hours after the beginning of hostilities, which can then go on for up to 60 days without Congressional approval. To continue beyond 60 days, he needs Congress to provide an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). However, Congress gave President Bush in 2001 an open-ended AUMF to prosecute his “Global War on Terror,” which is still on the books and saved Obama, Trump (in his first term), and Biden from having to ask for permission for their thousands of bombings, drone attacks, and special operations worldwide. This is an example of an action that is condemned if your political enemy takes it, but just fine if it’s your guy. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Moving on from politics to warfighting, one issue that has caused baseless concern is whether our continuing air offensive against Iran risks running out of munitions before our goals are achieved. The short answer is no, primarily because we are not that dependent on relatively scarce, expensive, long range precision ordnance. In the first days, before Iran’s air defenses were worn down, we used those extensively, delivered from outside Iranian airspace by more vulnerable aircraft like the B-1, B-2, or B-52, while stealthier and less vulnerable aircraft operated closer in. 

Now that much of the Iranian air defense system has been demolished, we are using direct strike rather than stand-off tactics with munitions like heavy, guided bombs appropriate for digging out deep, hardened high-value targets like missile stockpiles, command centers, and nuclear materials and facilities. There is no shortage of these weapons.

A related concern is that we and Israel might run out of the air defense missiles that protect our allies and our own Middle East bases against Iranian missile and drone attacks. That’s unlikely, because Iran’s daily ballistic missile attacks have diminished by 86% from the first day to Day 6. They’re the ones running out of munitions, having started with a finite number of both missiles and their launchers; the consensus seems to be 2,000 and 200 respectively. U.S. and Israeli attacks have focused on destroying the launchers, the missile stockpiles, and the plants where they’re built, and they’ve been launching a hundred or so a day, so the attacks are tapering off rapidly. Their drones and cruise missiles are more numerous, but those can be intercepted by entirely different systems, up to and including Israel’s new and very economical “Iron Beam” land-based lasers.   

Finally, let’s do a little cocktail napkin math and deflate the threat of these Iranian ballistic missiles. Such missiles, without WMD warheads, are largely (quoting Shakespeare again) “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”

Iran’s ballistic missiles carry conventional high explosive warheads weighing an average of 1,000 kilograms. An F-16C fighter carries almost twice that weight of bombs; an F-35 carries six times, a B-2 20 times, and a B-1 or B-52 bomber about 36 times as much. And these aircraft can fly several sorties missions a day, if their bases are close enough for the turnaround. The weight of explosives delivered each day of this ongoing battle by Iranian ballistic missiles is a small fraction of what we and our allies deliver with superior accuracy and effect. They are not super weapons, nor particularly effective ones. 

Iran’s missile stockpiles are being dug out and destroyed; more launchers are destroyed every day; and the missiles they had ready on Day 1 have been expended or destroyed at a rapid rate. In short, we’ve seen their worst. The small payloads of the missiles that do get through to their targets cause less damage than most imagine, especially to hardened, militarily significant targets or to civilians in shelters.

The final outcome in Iran will take a while longer, but compared to tolerating a homicidal regime sworn to our destruction, the time and costs will be well justified. When in doubt, look past the headlines and persevere.