What Editorials Think of the Iran Assault

A look at how editorials in three big newspapers responded to the US military operation in Iran:

• Wall Street Journal: The editors are impressed with the initial success and warn President Trump not to stop too soon. People are warning the US not to repeat the mistake of George W. Bush and get bogged down in an endless war, but the editorial suggests the better comparison is George HW Bush in 1990. "The coalition campaign was so successful in pushing Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait that Bush and his advisers stopped too soon and spared most of his military." Saddam and Iraq remained as threats. "This doesn't imply a forever bombing campaign in Iran. But it does mean continuing as long as it takes to ensure that, even if the regime doesn't fall, it will no longer be a threat to its neighbors."

• Washington Post: "Whether Trump has made the right call will hinge on factors now beyond his control," the editors write. "No president has ever intended to get drawn into a quagmire." The editors don't see meaningful change in Iran happening without US boots on the ground to some degree, which means Congress must get involved. "It's essential that the people's elected representatives get to vote on whether these strikes are justified. A comprehensive case has yet to be made, and better late than never."
• New York Times: This is the most critical of the three, with the headline labeling the operation "reckless." The editors have no sympathy for the Iranian regime, but they write that Trump hasn't earned the "blind trust" he is asking the public to have in him here. "Trump's failure to articulate a strategy for this attack has created shocking levels of uncertainty about it," the editorial reads, and the first US casualties have arrived. "We lament that Mr. Trump is not treating war as the grave matter that it is."