Senate limits Trump against Iran
WASHINGTON — The Senate passed a resolution Thursday to limit President Donald Trump’s power to order military action against Iran without first seeking Congress’ permission, a bipartisan rebuke of his administration’s resistance to involving the legislative branch in decisions that some fear could lead to all-out war.
Eight Republicans joined all Democrats in voting 55-45 for the measure, despite sharp warnings from Mr. Trump that challenging his war powers would “show weakness” and “sends a very bad signal” to Tehran. Mr. Trump will almost certainly veto the measure once it passes the House, and neither chamber of Congress has the votes to override that veto, lawmakers say.
Democrats behind the resolution say they are convinced the measure may yet influence Mr. Trump’s future decisions on the Middle East.
“We’ve been talking to our constituents, we’ve been listening to them, and we know what they think about another war in the Middle East right now,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. “[Trump’s] got an election that he’s focused on and he wants to win . ... He could well veto it and then adjust behavior.”
Half the Senate Republicans who broke ranks with Mr. Trump had done so before on the same issue. In June, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Mike Lee, R-Utah, Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Jerry Moran, R-Kan., joined Democrats in backing an amendment to the annual defense bill requiring that Mr. Trump approach Congress
before taking military action against Iran, except in cases of clear self-defense or imminent attack.
In March 2019, those four Republican senators, along with Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Todd Young, R-Ind., joined Democrats to back a war-powers resolution ordering the president to stop helping the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen.
The number of GOP senators willing to cross Mr. Trump over his Iran policy has risen in the wake of the strike last month that killed top Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, amid the possibility that it could have triggered a wider war without any congressional involvement.
Mr. Trump viewed the resolution as a personal affront, and Wednesday urged Republicans to reject it, framing the measure as a dangerous show of timidity and an attempt by Democrats to “embarrass the Republican Party.”
“We are doing very well with Iran, and this is not the time to show weakness,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, adding: “If my hands were tied, Iran would have a field day. Sends a very bad signal.”
Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Bill Cassidy, RLa., who have voted with Mr. Trump on previous Iran and war-powers measures, joined the group of Republicans breaking with the president Thursday, stating that there are limits to how much the president can do without first consulting Congress.
“If this passes, the president will never abide by it — no president would,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “I want the Iranians to understand, when it comes to their provocative behavior, all options are on the table.”
For some of those Republicans, the vote was not a criticism of the Soleimani strike but an assertion of the need for congressional authorization before the administration embarks on a conflict.
“If this resolution was in effect at the beginning of the year, President Trump would have still been able to carry out strikes against Iran and General Soleimani [which I supported],” Mr.
Cassidy said in a statement explaining his vote. “The founders gave Congress the power to declare war under Article 1 of the Constitution; we should fulfill this responsibility.”
Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, argued against the resolution, saying that Congress’ time would be better spent passing a resolution cheering Mr. Trump, as it did for President Barack Obama for ordering the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden — who, Mr. Risch argued, posed a much less imminent threat to the country than Soleimani did.
Presidents of both parties, including George W. Bush, Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump, have said they have the right to order military action as a matter of self-defense when they see threats they define as “imminent.” But some lawmakers say the executive branch has expanded its war powers to the detriment of Congress, particularly when it invokes congressional authorizations passed in 2001 and 2002 to support action in conflicts never envisioned at that time.
National security adviser Robert O’Brien said the strike on Soleimani was justified by Congress’ 2002 authorization of the war on Iraq.
Efforts in Congress to repeal the old authorizations or write new ones have failed, amid the divide between lawmakers who want to bring troops home and those who want to provide fresh authorization for current campaigns.