By Sabiu Abdullahi
The Editorial Board of The New York Times has strongly criticised Donald Trump over his decision to launch a fresh military attack on Iran, describing the move as reckless and poorly justified.
In an opinion piece published on February 28, 2026, the board said Mr. Trump had gone against his earlier campaign promise to end wars, noting that he had instead ordered military strikes in several countries over the past year.
The editorial stated that the latest operation, carried out in cooperation with Israel, was broader than earlier attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. It accused the president of failing to properly explain the reasons for the action to Americans and the international community.
According to the board, Mr. Trump did not seek approval from Congress before authorising the strike, despite constitutional provisions that grant lawmakers the authority to declare war. It also criticised the timing and manner of his announcement, noting that he released a video in the early hours of Saturday claiming Iran posed “imminent threats” and calling for regime change.
The editorial questioned the credibility of the president’s justification. It pointed out that he had earlier claimed Iran’s nuclear programme was “obliterated” during the June strikes, a position it said was contradicted by intelligence reports and the need for a new attack.
While acknowledging that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a legitimate objective, the board argued that the administration had not clearly defined its goals or secured sufficient domestic and international support.
It further stated that the president’s approach showed disregard for both U.S. law and international rules governing warfare.
The editorial also criticised the Iranian government, describing it as oppressive and responsible for widespread human rights abuses, including the killing of protesters and persecution of minorities. It added that Iran’s leadership had long posed a threat through its hostility toward the United States and alleged support for violent activities abroad.
Despite this, the board maintained that the dangers posed by Iran do not justify what it described as an ill-prepared and potentially destabilising military action by the Trump administration.
