Follow us on social

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

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 “There is simply no need to retain outdated AUMFs and leave them open to abuse by the executive branch.”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)
Analysis | North America
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

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.