Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Senators Express Support, Criticism of Future Military Action in Iran

News

Senators Express Support, Criticism of Future Military Action in Iran

Sen. Chuck Schumer criticized the Iran War on Tuesday. Republicans and Democrats are mostly split along party lines in support and criticism of the war.

(Marissa Fernandez/MNS)

WASHINGTON — Senators seemed split along party lines over future military action in the Middle East after a classified intelligence briefing on Tuesday afternoon. Democrats called for increased clarity on the objectives and justifications for attacks, while Republicans supported the Trump administration’s current plan.

The conflicting reactions came as both the House and the Senate are scheduled to vote on a war powers resolution on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. If passed, the resolution would limit further military actions in Iran without congressional approval.


Most Republicans criticized the measure and said that Congress should not take authority away from the president.

“We don’t need 535 commanders-in-chief,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday. “The commander in chief is the president of the United States, and he has a duty in Article Two to be able to protect American interests, and he is initiating that and doing that with great authority and great effect.”

Democrats criticized the president for striking without congressional approval.

The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but dictates that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

“Nobody gets to hide and give the President an easy pass or an end run around the Constitution,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said regarding the war powers resolution. “Everybody's got to declare whether they're for this war or against it.”

President Donald Trump launched strikes on Iran early Saturday morning. As of Wednesday morning, over 1000 people, including six U.S. service members, have been killed in the conflict, reported CBS News. Trump and members of his administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, offered conflicting justifications for the war and different estimates of how long it might last.

Democrats expressed worry over the lack of clarity from the Trump administration.

“They have shifting goals, different goals all the time, different answers every day,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Tuesday. “And I'm truly worried about the mission. There's no set plan being here day after day. ‘We're going to do this, this, this and this,’ and these are the reasons why you end up with an endless war.”

Schumer added that the answers given during Tuesday’s intelligence briefing were "unsatisfying."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed Schumer’s concerns about the unclear objectives.

“I am more fearful than ever after that briefing that we may be putting boots on the ground and that troops in the United States may be necessary to accomplish objectives that the administration seems to have,” said Blumenthal. “But I also am no more clear on what priorities are going to be of the administration going forward, whether it is destroying the nuclear capacity of the missiles or regime change or stopping terrorist activities.”

Blumenthal added that the “administration owes it” to the American people to release information about the Iran war.

Republicans came out of Tuesday’s briefing praising the administration and its objectives.

“They want to make sure that the ability for them to strike us anywhere at any time is gone,” said Mullin. “No way they'll be able to make a nuclear weapon or enrich uranium again. To take out their navy so they can't disrupt commerce in the shipping lanes, and to take out their ability to restock and rebuild their missiles and drones. That's the objective here.”

Mullin added that the U.S is “going to eliminate the threat that’s been threatening us for 47 years,” which “no other president was willing to stand up against Iran and eliminate it like President Trump.”

Others, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., expressed similar confidence in the U.S. military's power.

“Who’s going to win a war between the Iranian regime and the United States? We are. We’re going to win this conflict,” Graham said.

Marissa Fernandez covers politics for Medill on the Hill.


Read More

Six Undeclared Wars Reveal Fatal Costs and Failed Oversight
grayscale photo of man in black jacket and pants holding rifle

Six Undeclared Wars Reveal Fatal Costs and Failed Oversight

In America’s 250-year history, only five wars were formally declared by Congress as required by Article I of the U.S. Constitution. They and the respective presidents were: the War of 1812 (James Madison), the Mexican-American War (James Polk), the Spanish-American War (William McKinley), World War I (Woodrow Wilson), and World War II (Franklin D. Roosevelt).

Many Americans may not fully comprehend the magnitude of military casualties, exceedingly high financial costs, and public opposition to the six most recent wars (1950-present) that were not completely authorized by Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less
Bill of Rights
Happy 230th birthday, Bill of Rights
leezsnow/Getty Images

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the first of three parts exploring “Article the First,” the forgotten proposal in the original Bill of Rights. For 237 years, a single, inverted word has created a “semantic illusion,” leading historians and policymakers to misread the founders' intended guarantee of a growing House as a ceiling. This series uncovers the error, tracks its consequences, and explores why reclaiming the founders’ original vision is the path to meaningful representation reform.

Part 1 — The Inverted Word

Keep ReadingShow less