https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5354540-us-involvement-iran-house-resolution-bipartisan/amp/ A bipartisan group of House members on Tuesday introduced a war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. involvement in Iran as its conflict with Israel intensifies, signaling they may force a vote on the matter. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is one of the most outspoken libertarian-leaning Republicans advocating against U.S. military intervention abroad, posted on the social media site X on Monday that he would introduce such a resolution on Tuesday. “This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution,” Massie said. “I’m introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution.” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said he would co-lead the resolution with Massie and that the resolution would be privileged — a designation that can allow the members to circumvent leadership to force a full House vote. “No war in Iran. It’s time for every member to go on record. Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?” Khanna said in a post on X. “I am proud to co-lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie that is privileged and must receive a vote.” The text of the resolution says “Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.” It clarifies, though, that the resolution should not be used to disrupt intelligence gathering or “the sharing of intelligence between the United States and any coalition partner if the President determines such sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests of the United States.” The idea got swift support from some House Democrats. “Signing on,” replied Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) also said he would sign on. No other Republicans have co-sponsored the resolution yet. President Trump has declined to rule out using the power of the U.S. military to help Israel strike Iran, even as he pushes Iran to negotiate and strike a deal to ensure it would never obtain a nuclear weapon. The U.S. has helped Israel in missile defense, but the Pentagon said Monday night that American forces are maintaining their defensive posture. On Air Force One on Monday night, Trump told reporters: “We’re looking for better than a ceasefire” and was looking for “a real end,” with Iran “giving up entirely.”
Are you kidding me, Trump just demanded Iran's unconditional surrender. The Rising Lion, Israel and friends want to make Persia great again.
Trump never served. Thus, he wouldn't understand your statement and it's the reason why he made such a silly comment on Truth Social. With that said, I do agree with Trump that Iran must never have nuclear weapons. It's a country who has threaten the United States, threaten political leaders regardless of their party affiliation, and killed American soldiers. Just as important, Iran continues plotting terror activities against the United States, and many other countries. Simply, their nuclear weapon capability must be eliminated at all cost even if it increases the risk of them retaliating against Americans on U.S. soil. The irony of it all is that many Americans still believe Trump is a President of Peace (he never was). The reality is that Trump is now learning he can not keep his grandiose promises because he now knows he can not control other countries...not control what they do. Will this escalate into a WW3 ? I doubt it. Will Americans die on our home soil when Iran retaliates ? I believe so. Will our children and grandchildren pay the price down the road at the hands of Iran if we do nothing ? Yes We already have Army Rangers deployed in South Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq...trained for many years for a confrontation with Iran after the failed 1980 rescue attempt of American hostages in Tehran, Iran in Operation Eagle Claw. Hopefully they will never be needed again to set foot on the ground in Iran nor have special missions there that Americans will never know about unless something goes wrong. If so, we're much better prepared for an invasion of Iran since the late 1980s in a combined military force with Israel. As I stated a few weeks back when Trump banned certain countries from entering the United States, 101st Airborne troops in L.A., Trump visiting Fort Bragg just before the 250th Army Anniversary, and increasing military presence of Army Rangers in South Korea (a country I'm very familiar with)...something was going on as in shit was about the hit the fan. wrbtrader
You raise valid concerns about Iran as a threat, but the solution must be lawful and strategic, not an extra-constitutional gamble. One must ask the deeper question: Is the U.S. military acting in defense, or simply doing what Smedley Butler called a racket? Demanding "unconditional surrender" from Iran without a declared war isn't strategy. It’s political theater. It’s not lawful, and it’s not serious. At the same time, it is very much a declaration of war, whether or not those exact words are used. This isn’t diplomacy or a police action. Even limited military operations in the past relied on Congressional authorization such as the 2001 AUMF. This case does not. A president unilaterally enacting preemptive war or demanding surrender from a sovereign nation without Congressional authorization is: Unconstitutional (Article I, Section 8: only Congress may declare war) Strategically reckless Precedent-breaking, unless framed as covert action under a standing AUMF, which clearly doesn’t apply to nation-states like Iran If Iran is truly the threat you say, then Congress must act. Otherwise, indulging this Project 2025-style unitary presidency turns the Commander-in-Chief into a rogue war-maker. And at that point, senior military leaders must show institutional backbone and demand lawful orders or they betray their oaths.
In a nation that pretends the rule of law is our oath to true justice the burden of proof falls squarely on the accuser, or so the myth goes. Does Iran have a nuclear weapon or not? Yes or no? If so, provide conclusive evidence. If not then we are executing a death sentence for something they might have. Even if they did have a nuke, we are still advocating for execution for a crime not yet committed. If we want to blast them to the stone age we can use other reasons if we're so hell bent for war. They do sponsor and facilitate international terrorism. They are guilty of many crimes against humanity. So destroy them for that if you like, but quit pretending it's about stopping them from getting the nukes you have been saying they're days away from getting, saying it for 30 fucking years. Isreal wants a war, so the USA goes to war? Not in the America we pretend to be. In the America we actually are? Yep, our government loves war.