Posts
But it is Congress’s constitutional right to declare war — not the president’s — despite the wide latitude given to the White House in recent decades to use military force during the war on terrorism. As Mr. Trump seriously considers joining Israel in this war, it is essential for elected lawmakers to reclaim their responsibility and put their names on record with a vote as to whether they’re willing to send American troops in harm’s way in yet another war in the Middle East.
The Editorial Board
America Must Not Rush Into a War Against Iran
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
A nuclear-armed Iran would make the world less safe. It would destabilize the already volatile Middle East. It could imperil Israel’s existence. It would encourage other nations to acquire their own nuclear weapons, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences.
Now, however, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has acted to destroy Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons without first shoring up allies’ support. The United States faces being dragged into another war in the Middle East, with American lives at stake. And while the world tries to figure out what President Trump will do in the coming days, that is the wrong question. If Mr. Trump wants the United States to join the Israeli war against Iran, the next step is as clear: Congress must first authorize the use of military force.
Our laws are explicit on this point. An unprovoked American attack on Iran — one that could involve massive bombs known as bunker busters — would not be a police action or special military operation. It would be a war. To declare it is not the decision of Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Trump. Under the Constitution, Congress alone has that power.
When lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, they limited the president’s authority to conduct military operations, carving out an exception to respond to a foreign attack. This is not such a circumstance. Iran has not attacked the United States. There is ample time for Congress, the elected representatives of the American people, to debate this decision and render its judgment.
Several members of Congress seem to appreciate that responsibility. On Tuesday, Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, filed a House resolution, along with Democratic colleagues, that would require Congress to sign off ahead of any offensive U.S. attack against Iran. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, introduced a similar measure on Monday.
This approach has a long history. Only one day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, in 1941, both houses of Congress declared war. Even with the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson persuaded lawmakers to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964. More recently, Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq in both 1991 and 2002. It also did so in 2001, before the war in Afghanistan. Members of Congress from both parties have often rightly stood up for their power in this area. In 2013, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas told ABC News that President Barack Obama did not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without congressional approval. “It would be contrary to the Constitution,” Mr. Cruz said.
In recent decades, presidents have frequently cited 2001 and 2002 laws approving military force — known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or A.U.M.F — to justify U.S. missions against terrorist groups, including in Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Yet they have stretched executive power by doing so. And a war against Iran, which is a sovereign nation rather than a terrorist group, is not justified by decades-old laws written for a different kind of conflict.
The separate question of whether the United States should join the conflict is not one that we are addressing here. We know the arguments in favor of doing so — namely, that Iran’s government is a malevolent force in the world and that it has made substantial progress toward acquiring a nuclear weapon. Last week the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is part of the United Nations, declared that Iran was violating its nonproliferation obligations and apparently hiding evidence of its efforts.
But there are strong arguments against an attack, too. Only a decade ago, Iran’s leaders agreed to a deal with the Obama administration that included inspections and other policies to keep its nuclear ambitions in check. Given how much weaker Iran is today than it was then, thanks partly to Israel’s humbling of Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, the Trump administration might well be able to achieve a stricter deal today.
Let’s be plain: Bombing Iran would be a war of choice for the United States at this point. Mr. Trump, long a skeptic of foreign entanglements, seems to grasp as much. He spent months advocating diplomacy with Iran and questioning the wisdom of an Israeli attack, let alone an American one. “I want to have an agreement with Iran,” he said last week. If Israel started a war, he added, “that would blow it.” Only in the past few days has Mr. Trump waffled.
He has the right to change his mind, of course. But he should then make the case to the nation for committing American blood and treasure. To refuse to put the issue to a vote in Congress is to concede that the American public does not support yet another foreign war with ill-defined aim and no plan for what happens next. The recent history of regime-change wars is hardly encouraging, especially in the Middle East.
Decisions about when and whether to go to war are often difficult and always important. For these reasons, the Constitution does not vest them in any one person, not even the commander in chief. The American people and their elected representatives must have their say. Let this vital debate begin.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
Mr. Hennigan writes about national security issues for Opinion from Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment