We must Stop the Administration’s March to War with Iran
We have watched for weeks as the Trump Administration has escalated tensions with Iran, both rhetorically and through changes in policy. Iran is starting to push back, and a military confrontation is increasingly possible. On May 16, I spoke on the floor of the United States Senate out of concern over this Administration’s reckless and incendiary policy, calling on my colleagues in Congress to exercise oversight over the White House’s efforts to promote war with Iran.
The same day, I joined a bipartisan group of colleagues in co-sponsoring the Prevention of Unconstitutional War with Iran Act (S. 1039). Specifically, the measure would prohibit the United States from expending funds which could lead to war with Iran without express approval from Congress, as required by the Constitution.
The Prevention of Unconstitutional War with Iran Act of 2019 underscores that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the sole power to declare war, and makes it clear that a preemptive attack against Iran is illegal under both the War Powers Act and the United States Constitution. The bill also affirms the United States’ ability to respond to an imminent military threat from Iran and defend U.S. citizens who may come under threat of physical harm. The bill received review in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 22, but failed 9–13 on a largely party-line vote.
Despite my colleagues’ efforts on S. 1039, the Senate as a whole has thus far failed to meet its constitutional obligation and conduct effective oversight of what seems to me and many others to be this Administration’s inexorable march toward war with Iran.
Last week, the New York Times reported that Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan submitted plans to the Trump Administration to deploy 120,000 American troops to the Middle East in anticipation of a confrontation with Iran. It is no secret that some of the President’s closest advisers are focused on regime change and possibly military engagement with Iran.
Following the Times piece, the Washington Post reported: ‘‘Trump, frustrated by advisers, is not convinced the time is right to attack Iran.’’ In pertinent part, the story indicated that the President thinks his advisers ‘‘could rush the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran.’’ It goes on to state that ‘‘Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions.’’ I am encouraged by that, but we must be vigilant when it comes to this issue and the broader issue of the use of force.
In the days since the Times and Post reports, the President has shifted to incendiary rhetoric, threatening: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!” This comes amidst a recent string of actions this Administration has taken, from withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, to designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization, to suspending waivers that allow partner countries to continue importing Iranian oil.
These mixed messages coming from the Administration speak to a lack of coherent policy and strategy toward Iran, only making the United States vulnerable to a military confrontation.
I have a long record of working to fight against Iranian aggression. We have said it often and we should say it again: Iran is and has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism.
For years, my colleagues and I, in a bipartisan manner, have led efforts to confront Iran, to sanction Iran, to hold Iran accountable for its malign activity and actions in the Middle East and its actions to support terrorist organizations, whether it is Hezbollah or any other terrorist organization. We plan to continue this pressure.
The New York Times titled its report on the 120,000-troop military plan as “Echoes of Iraq War.” These ‘‘echoes’’ trigger memories and reflections of a misguided period of this body’s history in which Congress approved a U.S. invasion of Iraq based upon faulty intelligence. By the end of that long war, thousands of Americans had been killed, and many more Americans had been wounded.
In Pennsylvania alone, 197 Pennsylvanians were killed in action in the Iraq war and more than 1,200 were wounded. In Afghanistan, Pennsylvania lost more than 90 lives. Our Commonwealth is well familiar with contributing fighting men and women to conflicts — from the beginning of our Republic in the Revolutionary War until this very day.
The Administration’s actions on Iran also ‘‘echo’’ of our ongoing stalemate between Congress and the executive branch regarding the authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against ISIS. If we don’t debate and vote on an AUMF as it relates to Iran or any other country or any other conflict, we are not doing our job.
For six years, the United States has been engaged in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. For nearly two decades, the executive branch has relied on the 2001 AUMF to justify its fight against ISIS, including its activities in Iraq and Syria. I have repeatedly asked Majority Leader McConnell to set aside time for sustained debate and votes on a new authorization for use of military force, and do so again today.
Last month, Secretary of State Pompeo implied during testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the 2001 AUMF to go after al-Qaeda and its affiliates authorizes war with Iran. A lot of people would disagree with that. As far as my colleagues and I have been briefed, there is no operational linkage or coordination between Iran and al-Qaeda, and that is the legal standard by which we should be assessing activities under the 2001 AUMF.
To say that an 18-year-old authorization needs an update is an understatement. The threats we confront today have evolved since 2001, and it is incumbent upon both Democrats and Republicans to exercising our congressional authority to update the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.
As this administration seeks to link al-Qaeda and Iran in anticipation of a military confrontation, I am concerned over the bipartisan failure to hold both this and the prior Administration to account for their constitutional overreach over congressional authority. I commend Senator Kaine and colleagues on both sides of the aisle for efforts over the last several years to force a debate on congressional oversight over this issue. But both Democrats and Republicans have failed their duty to the American people to carefully consider and evaluate the nature of U.S. military engagement overseas and how it impacts American servicemembers and their families.
The Majority Leader should allow floor time and a robust debate on congressional war powers and oversight over the Executive’s unilateral actions that send American troops into harm’s way.
The debate on the Yemen resolution and the vote — several votes, actually — demonstrated that there is bipartisan concern over the use of force. But we need a broader debate than what we had on the Yemen resolution.
As this Administration pursues a reckless strategy with Iran, it is time for a sustained debate and vote on a new authorization for use of military force that allows our Nation to, in fact, destroy terrorists and fight threats to U.S. national security but doesn’t result in endless war. The 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force authorizing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan are outdated and must be replaced.
Abraham Lincoln wrote a now-famous letter to a Mrs. Bixby in which he talked about the loss of her sons’ lives in the Civil War. He said ‘‘the grief of a loss so overwhelming.’’ He went on to say: “But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.”
These words still ring true today — every President should read this letter as he or she deliberates about the use of force that commits our sons and daughters to fight and risk their lives.
When we talk about “so costly a sacrifice,” we all know what happened in our State. Military families in Pennsylvania, in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, endured “so costly a sacrifice.” I hope President Trump will reread this letter as he deliberates our next steps with regard to Iran and our next steps with regard to the authorization for the use of military force.
