‘Not our war’: bipartisan US lawmakers back resolution to block involvement in Iran | US foreign policy

11 comments

1. In the unfolding Middle East crisis, President Donald Trump faces mounting pressure both abroad and at home. Israel’s aggressive airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites have ignited a fierce retaliation, with Iran launching a barrage of missiles into Israeli cities. Trump’s rhetoric has escalated, demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and a complete dismantling of its nuclear program, while hinting at potential U.S. military involvement.

   However, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is pushing back. Led by Republican Thomas Massie and supported by progressive Democrats like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, lawmakers have introduced a resolution requiring congressional approval before any military action against Iran. This move underscores a growing concern over executive overreach and a desire to rein in presidential war powers.

   Internally, the administration is divided. While hawkish voices advocate for decisive military action, others, including Vice President JD Vance, urge caution and adherence to Trump’s “America First” principles. This rift reflects a broader tension within the Republican Party between interventionist and isolationist factions.

2. I mean Iran is tapping out already, so its kind of a moot point.

3. I find the fighting between interventionalist neo cons and the isolationist maga movement fascinating 

4. So isolationist MAGA and leftists support appeasement of the Iranian nuclear problem.

5. What could the resolution achieve effectively? How long would it take to make its way? Apologies, I’m a bit uninformed on this.

6. Good. The power to declare war and authorize the use of offensive force is a constitutional power of congress, not the president. Congress has given away far too many war powers to the president and needs to assert its rights as an institution. It is neither healthy nor wise to leave war to the whim of the executive.

   I’m not sure the odds of this passing, given how hard congress has tried to avoid votes on authorizing or blocking military action in the past, but this is a welcome attempt.

7. But didn’t Trump just declare that he wants Iran’s unconditional surrender?

   Does anyone remember Congress declaring war on Iran? I must have missed that.

   Apparently Trump wants the Ayatollah dead as well. 🤷‍♂️ Are we assassinating nation’s leaders again?

8. Seems like AIPAC as far more leverage than the american citizens Who voted for Trump

9. Jarvis, cross-reference the list of lawmakers backing this bill with the list of lawmakers who have received campaign support from AIPAC

10. If support was strong, the *Guardian* would have reported the number of cosigners. Their failure to do so means support is weak. This is how the *Guardian* “frames” news coverage, domestically and abroad: “Don’t lie, but tell only the part of the truth that favors our view.”

    Al Jazeera, a bit less scrupulously, follows the same principle.

    Some might say: well, every news organization does this. They’d be wrong: some news outlets try, vigorously, to guide you to their view. Others try, even if they sometimes stumble, to provide the information you need to come to your own view.

11. “Not our war”

    And 

    “Death to America” + a nuclear weapons program 

    Interesting take there…

Comments are closed.