On the night of Feb. 28, the U.S. and Israel initiated a large-scale military attack on Iran. Bypassing congressional authorization, President Donald Trump acted with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to strike top Iranian leadership and a variety of other targets. This action is blatantly unconstitutional. Its wisdom and morality are more debatable.

No Authorization, No Debate, No Declaration

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Debates about the extent to which presidents can initiate relatively small-scale military actions have raged for decades. But this attack is very obviously large enough to qualify as a war. That means it just as obviously requires congressional authorization. Trump didn’t get any—in fact, he did not even try to do so.

Don’t take my word for the proposition that it’s a war. Take Trump’s! He himself has called it a war, and proclaimed that the objective is regime change.

The closest historical analogue is Barack Obama’s 2011 air campaign against Libya, which was also an attempt at regime change carried out with air strikes. I criticized Obama’s action for violating the Constitution and the War Powers Act. But Iran is a larger and more powerful nation than Libya, which makes this likely to be an even bigger conflict.

After the Ayatollahs

The wisdom and morality of this action are a closer call. I am no reflexive opponent of military intervention. Regime change is sometimes justified. The Iranian regime is a brutally oppressive dictatorship that recently slaughtered tens of thousands of protesters, has a long history of promoting terrorism, and constantly seeks to develop nuclear weapons. For these and other reasons, I would welcome regime change there.

Even if the new government is far from ideal, it is likely to be less awful than regime of the ayatollahs.

But I am skeptical that regime change can be achieved with air and missile strikes alone. It does not seem like the U.S. and Israel have either the will or the capability of launching a major ground invasion. If the latter is attempted, it might turn out to be too costly to be worth it. The killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other top Iranian officials—while welcome—will not necessary change this calculus. The regime still controls large military forces, which—if they remain loyal—can suppress opposition.

Perhaps airpower could achieve regime change if coupled with a strong opposition movement within Iran. But Trump waited until after the regime crushed the protests that arose a few weeks ago, in the process slaughtering tens of thousands. It may be difficult or impossible for a strong opposition movement to emerge again without a ground attack.

War is inherently dynamic, and it would be foolish to make definitive predictions. At this point, I can only say I am skeptical this intervention will achieve the regime change Trump seeks, or any other beneficial result great enough to outweigh the damage done to our constitutional system.

That latter is not just a technical legal issue. The requirement of congressional authorization for the initiation of war is there to ensure that no one person can take the country to war on his own, and that any major military action have broad public support, which can be essential to ensuring that we have the will and commitment needed to achieve victory against difficult opponents.

The Framers of the Constitution deliberately gave Congress exclusive control over the power to initiate war. As James Madison put it: “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. … [T]he trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.”

One clear beneficial consequence of this action that has largely been ignored by the media so far: Iran is a major supplier of weapons to Russia for its war of aggression against Ukraine. As long as Iran is fighting the U.S. and Israel, it is unlikely to continue extensive weapons deliveries to Russia, since it will need those arms for its own use. On balance, it would have been more effective to help Ukraine by simply giving them weapons directly, which Trump has largely stopped doing. And, unlike starting a war without congressional authorization, giving arms to Ukraine doesn’t violate the Constitution, and does not expose U.S. forces to any significant risk.

This is a blatantly unconstitutional war. Time will tell whether it achieves any beneficial results that outweigh the costs—including the damage to our constitutional system of separation of powers.