Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1230032041-scaled

Congress's Work to Prevent War With Iran has Only Just Begun

The past almost 20 years provide good evidence that our bomb-first-ask-hard-questions-never approach to violence and security challenges has not made us or the world safer.

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

No sooner than the dust had settled on Iran’s limited military retaliation for the assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani did pundits claim it was a "win" for Trump. While we’re all breathing a sigh of relief that a direct military confrontation between the United States and Iran appears to be on hold for now, there’s a danger that Trump and his cabinet have taken the wrong lesson from last week’s avoidable events – namely, that Trump’s military action has deterred Iran and only more pressure will change the regime’s calculus.

Contrary to the narrative administration officials and many Republicans in Congress have coalesced around, now, more than ever before, it is essential that Congress get off its back foot and reassert its power over matters of war and peace.

The House of Representatives took an important first step on Thursday to rebuke Trump’s decision to sidestep Congress. By passing Rep. Elissa Slotkin’s (D-Mich.) war powers resolution, a bipartisan House majority made clear that it opposes war with Iran. While it’s not certain that Rep. Slotkin’s resolution will get a vote in the Senate thanks to chamber procedures, Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has already introduced companion legislation that is guaranteed to receive a vote.

Although the resolutions are unlikely to become law (if Trump’s frantic tweets prior to the House vote are a sign of what’s to come), they set an important precedent. By immediately rebuking Trump, the House has sent a clear message that Trump does not have the unilateral authority to take the country to war with Iran. It also shows that members of Congress are finally listening to the U.S. public who, as poll after poll shows, do not want a war with Iran.

Coupled with the war powers resolution to end the U.S. role in Yemen that passed Congress just last year, Congress has finally begun to consistently exercise a muscle it had long forgotten. Yesterday’s vote remains largely unprecedented, one of only a handful of times Congress has taken action to reassert its war authority since the era of endless war began. What makes this more impactful is the Iran-hysteria that permeates Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Exercising its war powers must not be the end of Congress’s action to rein in Trump, however. A rebuke is important to interrupt the march to war, but Congress must go further and use every tool it has to prevent Trump from starting a deadly war of choice. That means passing legislation that use Congress's power of the purse to defund any war with Iran that Congress does not authorize. Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have introduced legislation to do just that. Both bills have key members of Democratic party leadership as original sponsors and continue to add cosponsors daily.

In addition to defunding unauthorized war, Congress should repeal the outdated authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) that the administration has tried to use as legal cover for the Soleimani assassination. Shortly after the strike, Vice President Mike Pence resurfaced a debunked conspiracy theory that Soleimani took part in 9/11 to claim Trump acted under the 2001 AUMF – the long-abused legal authority for the United States' post-9/11 wars. When that was criticized, the administration claimed the 2002 AUMF – that authorized the U.S. invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003 – covered the Soleimani strike. None of these claims stand up to scrutiny, and instead reveal just how far the administration is willing to go to justify its lawless acts of war. Congress should repeal these outdated authorities that the administration will surely continue to abuse by passing Rep. Barbara Lee's (D-Calif.) AUMF repeal bills.

Thankfully, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has signaled she is willing to bring all of the aforementioned legislation to the floor for a vote. But while Congress seems poised for action in the immediate term, it must not stop at creating roadblocks to war with Iran. The reality is that the United States' near-permanent war footing since 2001 has created a culture where military action is seen as the solution to every political and security challenge. It is this mentality – that every potential threat to U.S. power must be met with military or economic force – that has led us to the precipice of war with Iran. And while Trump has taken this mentality to its most extreme, the militarization of U.S. foreign policy long predates Trump. It is merely a framework that Trump has taken to its logical conclusion.

That's why Congress must go further in this moment and deeply examine the structures and groupthink that has convinced so many in power that war is the only viable tool to address conflict. That is the only way to get out partisan debates of good vs. bad guy or whether military action is legal, to debates of whether military force can actually address the problems we face and if it serves the security of people in the United States and those in the country we might bomb.

The past almost 20 years provide good evidence that our bomb-first-ask-hard-questions-never approach to violence and security challenges has not made us or the world safer. As thousands of people showed us on Thursday by turning out across the country to demand no war with Iran, the public is ready for the United States to choose an alternative path to endless war. The question is if Congress will finally listen.


google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.