Congress Reacts to Trump’s Strikes on Iran with War Powers Resolution

Following President Trump’s recent attacks on Iranian nuclear sites without congressional authorization, bipartisan lawmakers have introduced a War Powers Resolution aimed at preventing further unauthorized military actions. Key figures like Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie express concerns over the constitutional implications of these strikes, urging immediate congressional action. Meanwhile, discussions continue about the broader impacts this conflict may have on U.S. foreign policy and domestic priorities.

Tensions are rising in Congress as lawmakers react to President Donald Trump’s recent military actions against Iran, specifically strikes on three nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—without prior authorization from Congress. This potential breach of the Constitution has prompted bipartisan outrage, with representatives advocating for the newly introduced War Powers Resolution aimed at curbing unauthorized military actions undertaken by the President. Co-sponsors of the resolution, Reps. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, and Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voiced strong concerns about Trump’s actions amidst ongoing discussions about U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict.

Massie was direct in his criticism, stating, “This is not constitutional,” a response to Trump’s post announcing the strikes. The War Powers Resolution aims to prevent America from becoming involved in another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict. Notably, Khanna emphasized the urgency of the situation, calling for Congress to return and address what he sees as an infringement on legislative authority concerning war declarations.

The introduction of the War Powers Resolution comes at a critical time, with ongoing hostilities between Israel and Iran and high-stakes military measures being considered by the Trump administration. Notably, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune reportedly had prior briefings on the strikes, raising questions about the transparency and decision-making processes in such critical engagements.

In the Senate, a similar resolution was introduced by Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, which is distinguished by its privileged status, guaranteeing that it must be debated and voted upon soon. Kaine has articulated the public’s apprehension toward another war in the Middle East, asserting, “The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran.” His comments stress a critical viewpoint on why Trump’s decision appears hasty and unwarranted.

A surprising range of congressional members have come together in a coalition opposing the U.S.’s potential further involvement in this conflict. Massie described these military actions as contrary to the Constitution, asserting, “This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.” He also noted the diverse backing for the resolution, including progressive members of the “Squad” and moderate Republicans alike.

Among those supporting the initiative are the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, who echoed sentiments of focusing on domestic priorities rather than foreign engagements. “This is not our fight,” she declared, reinforcing the notion that many see value in prioritizing U.S. interests over international military commitments.

The bipartisan effort reflects a growing frustration across party lines with the perceived overreach of executive power in matters of military engagement. Even other co-sponsors, including progressive Democrats like Pramila Jayapal and Ayanna Pressley, argue against the constitutionality of Trump’s military actions without congressional consent. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated that a decision regarding further strikes would be forthcoming.

As the conflict deepens, particularly following Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear capabilities characterized by Iranian officials as a declaration of war, the stakes have never been higher. Ali Bahreini, Iran’s ambassador to Geneva, reiterated Iran’s intent to continue uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes, despite aggressive foreign actions aimed at curtailing its nuclear ambitions. The potential fallout from current tensions could reshape not only U.S.-Iran relations but also the broader geopolitical landscape.

In summary, the bipartisan backlash against President Trump’s unauthorized military strikes on Iran highlights significant constitutional concerns regarding the war powers of Congress and the executive branch. Lawmakers are advocating for swift action via the War Powers Resolution to assert congressional authority in matters of military engagement. As diplomatic negotiations falter, the ongoing conflict poses risks not just internationally, but also domestically as political factions unite in opposition to an indefinite military commitment in the Middle East.

Original Source: www.foxnews.com