supreme issues of national safety. The president alone, as Alexander Hamilton said, is positioned to operate with "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch." Of course, Congress can block presidential action, but in this case, most members will be satisfied to stand clear and let the president do what must be done.
Wow, wouldn't it be great if the President had his own Army, so that we wouldn't be stuck when stupid Congress tried to pretend that their constitutional prerogative to initiate war was still in effect? Imagine -- the Defender of the Republic enabled with his own Guard...his own Republican Guard...gee, wouldn't that be something.
That snark safely out of the way, I want to reiterate that I really think the definitive point here is that the neocons in favor of bombing Iran are simply wrong on the merits, and opening up the entire question of whether they are wrong 'ideologically' is probably a gigantic waste of time. Yes, there's something of a judgment call here, but unless things have really gone off the rails neoconservatism doesn't simply mean mess up someone who does stuff you really don't want them to. Believe me, if an Iranian nuke really represented the supremely dire thing Muravchik & Co. thinks it does, I'd be entertaining the use of supremely dire force.
But it doesn't. Doesn't mean we have to like it. But supremely dire force is not properly calibrated when used in response to not supremely dire threats. And yes, even pinpoint strikes on Iran are supremely dire judging on the direct consequences they'll unleash upon US assets and personnel. Yes, I think these are worse than Iran having a bomb. And none of this means I wouldn't be pleased and grateful if Israel decided an Iranian nuke was wholly unacceptable and bombed accordingly.