THE STEADY STATE Statement on U.S. Attack of Iran

The Steady State | February 28, 2026

PDF AVAILABLE HERE

THE STEADY STATE

Statement on U.S. Attack of Iran

February 28, 2026 - The reported U.S. attack on Iran marks one of the most consequential national security decisions in recent years. It demands sober scrutiny — not reflexive celebration, not partisan instinct, but constitutional seriousness.

At the outset, we state clearly our respect for and support of the men and women who serve this nation in uniform, in our intelligence services, and in our diplomatic corps. They execute lawful orders, often at personal risk, and with professionalism that reflects the highest traditions of public service. Our concerns are not directed at those who serve, but at the process and judgment that place them in harm’s way. Their courage and commitment deserve clarity of mission, constitutional legitimacy, and strategic discipline.

Iran is not a fictional adversary. For decades, the regime in Tehran has supported proxy violence, destabilized the region, and pursued capabilities that threaten U.S. interests and allies. There are Americans who will view military action as long overdue. There are others who fear escalation, retaliation, and regional war. Both reactions are understandable.

What is not understandable — and not acceptable — is the apparent absence of constitutional process.

The Constitution vests in Congress the power to declare war. That allocation is not ceremonial. It is designed to prevent unilateral executive escalation, to require deliberation, and to ensure that when American lives are put at risk, the people’s representatives have been fully engaged. Reporting indicates that key congressional leaders were informed as operations were underway. That is notification, not authorization.

War, even when tactically justified, cannot be strategically sound if it bypasses constitutional guardrails.

Equally concerning is the opacity surrounding the intelligence basis for this decision. The United States maintains a $100+ billion intelligence enterprise for one reason: to provide policymakers with independent, objective assessments — particularly in moments of crisis. That system works only if analytic integrity is protected.

This administration has repeatedly disparaged, sidelined, and dismissed intelligence professionals when their conclusions conflicted with presidential narratives. The firing of senior intelligence officials following preliminary assessments that diverged from White House claims has sent a chilling signal throughout the system. In that environment, the question is not merely what intelligence was presented — but whether it was able to be presented candidly at all.

The central issue of the status and imminence of Iran’s nuclear capability has been publicly characterized in inconsistent ways over the past year. Americans deserve clarity. They deserve to know whether this action was driven by demonstrable necessity, or by policy preference.

The strategic implications are equally profound. Reporting suggests that the strikes extended beyond facilities to leadership targets, raising the specter of regime change. Regime change is not a limited objective. It carries with it the prospect of prolonged military engagement, regional destabilization, and unpredictable escalation. Such a course requires robust debate, coalition-building, and congressional endorsement. None of that appears to have preceded the action.

The United States is capable of using force responsibly. It has done so in the past. But responsible use of force depends on process: structured interagency deliberation, diversified counsel from experienced professionals, and serious evaluation of second- and third-order consequences. The visible pattern of this administration - impulsive action, concentration of authority, marginalization of dissenting views - undermines confidence that such discipline was applied here.

There is an additional dimension that cannot be ignored.

War consolidates executive power. It expands emergency authorities. It narrows political space. At a time when the President has openly questioned the necessity of elections, suggested personal control over their administration, and mused about extended tenure in office, the convergence of war and executive centralization should concern every American — regardless of party.

Iran presents real threats. The danger of retaliation, including through proxy networks such as Hizballah, is genuine. But real threats do not relieve us of constitutional obligations. They heighten them.

Democracies wage war differently than autocracies. They do so transparently, lawfully, and with institutional balance. They respect the analytic independence of their intelligence services. They engage Congress meaningfully. They treat the public as a partner in understanding risk; not as an audience for after-the-fact rationalizations.

If the United States is to confront Iran militarily, it must do so within the framework of law and constitutional fidelity. The defense of the nation abroad must not come at the expense of the democracy we seek to defend at home.

The Steady State calls upon Congress to assert its constitutional role immediately; upon intelligence professionals to continue to uphold analytic integrity; and upon the American people to insist that national security decisions of this magnitude meet the highest standards of process, transparency, and democratic accountability.

Our strength lies not only in our military capabilities, but in our democratic values enshrined in the constitution and in the institutions that uphold them. Neither must become collateral damage.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.