Follow us on social

google cta
Photograph-of-president-dwight-d-eisenhower-delivering-a-special-broadcast-f0a209-1600

Congress moves to revoke Eisenhower’s blank check for Middle East wars

Bet you didn't know there was an authorization for the use of military force against international communism still on the books.

Analysis | North America
google cta
google cta

The United States still has laws on the book authorizing war to keep “international communism” out of the Middle East. Congress is looking to change that.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee will be examining bills to repeal the 1991 and 1957 authorizations for the use of military force, or AUMF, during a Wednesday markup meeting. The former bill authorized the Persian Gulf War, while the latter is a blank check to carry out anticommunist operations in the Middle East.

Recent events have made Congress much more wary about leaving extraneous war powers on the books. Last year, the Trump administration used the 2002 AUMF — originally passed to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq — to justify assassinating Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani.

The House of Representatives moved forward on a bill by Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Calif.) to repeal the 2002 AUMF two months ago, while the Senate is advancing a bill by Sens. Tim Kaine (D–Va.) and Todd Young (R–Ind.) to repeal both the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs.

Lawmakers are now taking aim at older war authorizations as well. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D–Va.) is looking to take the 1991 AUMF off the books, and a bill by Rep. Peter Meijer (R–Mich.) is taking aim at the 1957 AUMF.

“It’s great to see the House Foreign Affairs Committee pursuing these repeals, having already advanced Rep. Barbara Lee’s bill to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF, which was misused last year to justify killing an Iranian general,” said Heather Brandon-Smith, legislative director for militarism and human rights at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker lobby group. “There is simply no need to retain outdated AUMFs and leave them open to abuse by the executive branch.”

Neither the 1957 nor 1991 AUMFs are being used for ongoing military operations. The 1991 AUMF authorized U.S. forces to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait three decades ago, and enforce UN resolutions that expired long ago.

The 1957 law is much more vague. It declares a U.S. policy of using “armed forces” to defend nations in “the general area of the Middle East” against “armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism.”

The Eisenhower administration told Congress at the time that the authorization would hopefully never have to be used, as its very existence would deter a Soviet attack.

“You may say, ‘Why don’t we wait until the attack occurs?’ Why, then it is too late. The whole purpose of this thing is to be a deterrent, a preventive to war,” then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said at a 1957 meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But several close calls during the Trump administration and a turn in public opinion away from “forever wars” has pushed Congress to finally begin revisiting the broad war powers it had given away over the past few decades.

“There’s an evident hunger among both parties in Congress to do more on this — and there should be,” said Erica Fein, legislative director at Win Without War. “The work has just started, and it will not be over until Congress repeals all of the AUMFs on the books, and reformed the War Powers Resolution so that legislating blank checks for war becomes a thing of the past.”


President Dwight D. Eisenhower (National Archives)
google cta
Analysis | North America
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

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.