I’ve long respected David French’s work, though I’ve certainly not always agreed with him. Yes, yes, I know — he’s very NeverTrumpy. Well, so was I during the 2016 election. What’s changed for me since then is that I’ve morphed into what I’ve previously referred to as a “TrumpSkeptic.” I don’t hate everything Trump does and I don’t love everything he does. I don’t suffer from “TDS,” nor do I deify him. I think he’s an extraordinarily and very visibly flawed human being but I also recognize that, from a policy and result standpoint, he’s often singing my song. He’s surprised me on that — pleasantly.

I noted the benefit of this vantage point last night, as the news of Qassem Soleimani’s being taken out made the rounds and the Twitterverse erupted in celebratory jigs or handwringing (depending on which “side” one happens to favor):

Benefit of being TrumpSkeptic: Being able to view significant events sans Trump lenses (pro or anti) and being able to see who's clearly incapable of same. Some of y'all really have your slips showing.

— Susie Moore (@SmoosieQ) January 3, 2020

My colleagues here have already covered some of the embarrassing shows made last night and this morning by the left-leaning smart set.  (READ: Liberals Lose Their Minds After Trump Kills Iran’s Qassem Soleimani; Iranians, Iraqis Are Celebrating Trump Taking Out Soleimani, but WaPo Calls Terrorist Leader ‘Most Revered’; Pelosi, Schiff, and the Media Position Themselves to Maximize the Political Opportunity Soleimani’s Death Provides.)

But what caught my eye last night was David French’s analysis of the legality of the strike. French took to Twitter and provided the following insight:

There's much to say about the potential strategic benefits (and perils) of tonight's decision, but make no mistake, separate congressional authorization was not necessary. This was not a separate act of war in the constitutional sense. I'll explain why in a brief thread. /1 https://t.co/JSGEDFAQLs

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

It's very important that Suleimani was killed in Iraq. Why? Because American troops are lawfully in Iraq — there by congressional authorization and with the permission of the Iraqi government. Moreover, they have a right of self-defense. /2

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

And don't forget, they were reintroduced to Iraq by the Obama administration. The present military operations are a continuation of military operations initiated by President Obama. This is Obama's deployment as much as Trump's. It was proper then, and it is proper now. /3

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

Iranian-backed militias attacked U.S. troops lawfully present in a combat zone under valid legal authorities. Moreover, America's military response isn't limited to immediate self-defense or tit for tat. It can act to remove the threat. That threat includes enemy commanders. /4

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

The true "act of war" was thus Iran's — by putting one of its commanders, boots on the ground, in Iraq to assist in planning and directing attacks on U.S. forces. America is entitled to respond to that threat. /5

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

Suleimani was an evil, evil man. There is much American blood on his hands. And he was killed lawfully, in a properly constitutionally-authorized conflict. There is much risk and peril to come, but Trump's action was constitutionally legitimate, and that matters. A lot. /End

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

French’s conclusion about the legality of the strike? In a nutshell:

Suleimani was an evil, evil man. There is much American blood on his hands. And he was killed lawfully, in a properly constitutionally-authorized conflict. There is much risk and peril to come, but Trump’s action was constitutionally legitimate, and that matters. A lot. /End

French later went on to analyze the possible repercussions.

The strike against Suleimani was lawful. He richly deserved his fate. But was it wise? It's way too early to make that call. Its ultimate wisdom depends greatly on the days/weeks/months ahead. There's a branching tree of possibilities. Here are some. A brief thread. /1

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

"The brush-back pitch" — A friend and former member of the intel community used this phrase as a hopeful assessment. The strike makes Iran pause its escalations against the U.S. and its allies. There's no lasting peace, but Iran stands down for a time. /2

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

Revenge as a dish best served cold — Iran appears to stand down, but instead follows the Libyan playbook after Reagan's 1986 strike. Two years later, Libya's operatives downed Pan Am Flight 103. Iran waits, bides its time, and through proxies tries to hurt us later, badly. /3

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

Allies feel the pain — rather than strike back at the U.S. directly (something that Iran now knows carries considerable cost), Iran lashes out at American allies, hoping to cause economic pain and increase chaos without courting a decisive American response. /4

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

Direct confrontation — this is the war scenario. Iranian-backed militias strike back directly, with substantial force. Or Iran responds with its own military. Because of the immense risk to all parties, I'm hopeful this is low-probability. But the chance exists. /5

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

Chaos — Shia militia respond spontaneously, acting on their own initiative without direct Iranian command and control. If the Shia militia respond unilaterally, best case is a spasm of violence. Worst case is a sustained effort to drive Americans from Iraq. /6

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

These are hardly the only possibilities. Each Iranian response of course presents American leaders with their own menu of choices. We may have started down a road that leads to the welcome weakening of Iran. We could be walking down the path to a terrible, bloody war. /7

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

Bottom line — the Trump administration has taken a bold, justifiable action against Iran. But the next steps are vital, requiring strategic vision and tactical agility. I feel real joy at Suleimani's demise. I feel real concern about what comes next. /end

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

I won’t recap the whole thing – hopefully readers can follow it through the tweets. But, to sum up, French ends with:

Bottom line — the Trump administration has taken a bold, justifiable action against Iran. But the next steps are vital, requiring strategic vision and tactical agility. I feel real joy at Suleimani’s demise. I feel real concern about what comes next. /end

That’s a thoughtful analysis and pretty measured response from someone who has no qualms about calling Donald Trump on the carpet.

To those who are so blinded by their disdain for President Trump that they can only decry his taking out of a terrorist leader who posed an ongoing threat to our personnel and interests — an act they would, no doubt, have applauded had it emanated from President Obama — I can only say:  When you’ve lost David French….