Debate on Capitol Hill continues to rage over whether President started a “war” with the strikes he carried out against Iran last weekend, a key consideration for whether the president must look to Congress for authority to continue Operation Epic Fury.
Where Republicans see a narrowly-tailored attack designed to prevent a U.S. adversary from securing nuclear capabilities, Democrats see a conflict that could easily spill into a broader conflict.
“Congress is not supposed to be an after-the-fact spectator, the Constitution makes plain,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told Fox News Digital.
“President Trump has not said, like in Venezuela, this is a police operation,’ that its an arrest,” Kaine said, comparing the strikes to the January capture of Nicolás Maduro.
Democrats like Kaine have blasted Trump for dragging the U.S. into a conflict that, in their view, looks a lot like a war â something only Congress has the power to declare. It is that determination that makes them believe lawmakers should use the of 1973 to curb Trump’s powers in Iran.
That law prevents the president from continuing hostilities against a foreign power that extends past 60 days.
Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., see no reason to invoke the War Powers Act, given the scope of the current conflict.
A measure to kill a Democrat-led war powers resolution aimed at handcuffing Trumps military operations in Iran passed on Wednesday in a 53-47 Senate vote.
“I mean, even if you disagree with this, I just dont think you can dispute [that] theyre complying with the statute. The president has the authority under Article II to do what he has done so far,” Hawley said, referring to the Constitution’s military power granted to the country’s commander in chief.
Last Saturday, the U.S. conducted a with Israel, targeting the countrys military leadership and killing the countrys supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Trump administration has framed the attack as a necessary campaign to halt Irans work towards obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Although the administrations work so far, he has a firm red line in mind for where the conflict would require Congressional say-so.
“Ground troops would be a different deal,” Hawley said. “But [Trump] just said, Were not going to do ground troops, so, I just say to my Democrat friends â I think theyre just looking for something to vote against the president on.”
unconvinced.
Some Democrats noted that the language the administration has used suggests it views the conflict as something more than isolated strikes.
“The president and the secretary of state have called it a war. So have the generals. If were at war, Congress has to provide authorization,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.
Other Democrats, like Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., attacked the administrations stated reason for the attack.
“There was no imminent threat to the United States. There were but in terms of an imminent threat, there was not one. Â Consequently, this is the presidents war of choice,” Warner said.
“You have to come before Congress,” Warner added.
To Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the consideration should deal less with technicalities and more with consideration of the cost that could come with Trumps attacks.
“The American people make the decision on going to war because it’s their sons and daughters that will lose their lives. I still think thats the case, regardless of who the president might be,” Durbin said.
