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
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

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.