Escalating hostilities in the Middle East now have spurred a coalition of bipartisan legislators to nip the act in the bud. They’re pushing for a Congressional war powers resolution to limit President Donald Trump’s ability to go to war with Iran. This legislative action is clearly needed and long overdue. It follows on the heels of Trump storming out of a G7 summit in Canada to return to Washington, D.C., as Israeli airstrikes ramped up against Iranian military commanders and nuclear infrastructure.
In the days after the airstrikes, Trump issued escalating demands of Iran, adding to the fear of imminent military confrontation. Trump rekindled America First. Trump has long been against foreign wars. In fact, during his first term he vetoed two War Powers resolutions concerning Iran and Yemen respectively. His administration’s most recent moves, though, point to a troubling turn in the opposite direction — towards deeper, more direct U.S. involvement.
Our military assets are already moving into place in the region. U.S. aircraft and naval vessels, including a second carrier strike group, are in motion toward the Middle East. This concentration makes many members of Congress nervous, as they are increasingly worried that they may be on a path to an inflammatory and dangerous war.
To make things worse, Trump has threatened to join Israel in an attack on Iran, publicly making such threats. Read More Congressman Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, introduced a bipartisan war powers resolution. This resolution would require congressional approval before any military action is conducted against Iran. This resolution has gained support from several Democratic lawmakers, including Ro Khanna, along with Senators like Tim Kaine who have proposed companion legislation.
Massie emphasized the need for Congress to weigh in on military decisions, stating, “This is not our war. If it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”
The resolution is an important first step to prohibit Trump from deploying U.S. forces into a conflict without Congressional approval. Many Republican members from Matt Gaetz to Rand Paul have expressed their concern about U.S. entanglement in foreign wars. Marjorie Taylor Greene expressed her hesitance about supporting the resolution at this time, saying, “While I’m opposed to America’s involvement in foreign wars and regime change, I do not see a need to sign on to Rep. Massie’s war powers resolution yet as we are not attacking Iran.”
On the one hand, those outside the Administration are more alarmist about what it would mean to escalate. JD Vance addressed troops at a military parade in Washington, D.C., emphasizing the importance of caution: “We never ask you to go to war unless you absolutely have to.”
The geopolitical landscape surrounding Iran remains tense. U.S. intelligence suggests that Iran’s most fortified nuclear facilities may only be penetrable by advanced bunker-busting bombs that the U.S. possesses. This reality further creates a double-bind for legislators. As US military planners face the same challenge in combating emerging threats without sending ground troops into the fray.
Alex Pfeiffer reiterated the administration’s current stance on military engagement: “American forces are maintaining their defensive posture, and that has not changed. We will defend American interests.”
As Congress edges closer to a monumental fight over our nation’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, the resolution’s future is still up in the air. It’s that kind of critical moment that presents the best opportunity for Congress to assert their proper role in national security interests while upholding their constitutional responsibilities.