New York Times Editorial Board Slams Trump: “Iran Strike Was Reckless”
The New York Times Editorial Board sharply criticized President Donald Trump over the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, calling his decision “reckless” and accusing him of disregarding both domestic and international law.
As tensions escalate following US and Israeli military operations against Iran, criticism has emerged from within the United States. In an editorial titled “Trump’s Attack on Iran Was Reckless,” the New York Times Editorial Board condemned President Donald Trump’s move, arguing that he launched a new war without sufficient justification or support.
“He Promised to End Wars”
The editorial recalled Trump’s 2024 campaign pledge to end wars, noting that instead of reducing military engagements, he has ordered strikes on seven countries over the past year. The board wrote that his “appetite for military intervention appears to grow the more he uses it.”
“No Explanation to Congress or the Public”
According to the piece, Trump initiated the attack on Iran without properly informing the American public or consulting Congress. Referring to a video statement released by the president, the board argued that “the rationale he advanced is questionable, and defending it through a late-night video is unacceptable.”
Contradictions Over Iran’s Nuclear Program
The editorial highlighted what it described as inconsistencies in Trump’s justification. While he cited the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program as a key objective, he had previously declared after the June strikes that this goal had already been achieved, raising questions about the coherence of his argument.
“His Approach Is Reckless”
The board concluded with a strong rebuke:
“Mr. Trump’s approach to Iran is reckless. His objectives are unclear. He has failed to build the necessary international and domestic support to maximize the chances of a successful outcome. He has disregarded both national and international law in matters of war.”
While the editorial also criticized certain actions by Iran, it stated that a responsible US president would have presented stronger and more credible arguments before resorting to military action.
