WASHINGTON — Alabama congressional Republicans helped defeat a measure Thursday that would limit President Donald Trump’s strikes on Iran, following in the footsteps of Senate Republicans.
A war powers resolution would require the president to get approval from Congress before taking any further military action in Iran, as the conflict in the Middle East has intensified over the past six days.
The House vote fell mostly on party lines, with two Republicans crossing the aisle to support it and four Democrats joining the opposing party to vote against it.
House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Saks, strongly opposed the resolution, calling the strikes a “limited military operation with clearly defined objectives.”
“At this time, we should be focused on ensuring our warfighters have the resources and capabilities they need to succeed in this operation,” Rogers said on the House floor. “We should not pass any resolution that will end this critical operation before achieving these military objectives.”
The War Powers Resolution, established in 1973 in response to the Vietnam War, provides lawmakers an opportunity to fast-track votes on authorizing military operations or the removal of troops. Under the law, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. military forces if Congress has not declared war. A president can continue operations for up to 90 days before needing congressional approval to maintain military forces in an armed conflict.
Democrats have viewed the attacks on Iran in much different terms than Republicans, who are largely supportive of the operation. House and Senate Democrats argue that only Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war.
“Going into conflict under these circumstances with a stated goal from the president of a regime change, I think that is war, and I think that is a power that the Constitution reserves for Congress, and that Congress should debate it, and that we should take a vote on it,” Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Mobile, told Alabama Daily News.
Trump told Axios in an interview Thursday that he should be “involved in the appointment” of a new leader of Iran after the strikes killed the Middle Eastern nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, over the weekend.
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans also blocked an effort led by Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., to curb Trump’s authority to launch strikes in Iran. U.S. Sens. Tommy Tuberville and Katie Britt, R-Ala., voted against reining in the president’s actions concerning Iran.
“I don’t support endless wars and I haven’t since I came to the U.S. Senate, but I’m all for putting our enemies on notice,” Tuberville, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said. “Unlike every forever war from the last 50 years, President Trump has been clear about the goals of this ongoing operation.”
Trump has outlined four main goals for the U.S. military action in Iran, which include destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, annihilating their navy, ensuring the country doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon and restricting Iran’s ability to arm terrorist groups.
Rep. Dale Strong, R-Huntsville, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, told ADN that “the last thing you need to do is to start this and not finish the job.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., echoed those concerns, calling the passage of a war powers resolution a “terrible, dangerous idea.”
Other Alabama Republicans, like Rep. Barry Moore, R-Enterprise, argued that “Congress (doesn’t) need to know everything” because it’s difficult to trust that some lawmakers won’t share information about the attacks.
“The president informed us, he briefed us… and I think that he’s well within his rights to do what he’s doing,” Moore told ADN.
Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, held classified briefings with House members and senators earlier this week. But Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Birmingham, said the president should have done more to consult with federal lawmakers.
“While the regime in Iran has oppressed their people and supported terrorism in the region for decades, the President must still come before Congress and the American people with clear justifications for the use of military force at this scale,” Sewell said in a statement.
The White House has not ruled out the possibility of having U.S. troops on the ground in Iran as the conflict continues. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press briefing on Wednesday that there are no plans to deploy troops as part of the current operation.
“But I certainly will never take away military options on behalf of the president of the United States or commander in chief,” Leavitt said.
Republicans aren’t as keen on deploying U.S. troops to Iran.
“I’m gonna tell you right now, I don’t think that boots on the ground is the direction to go,” Strong told ADN after the House classified briefing.
Moore said he thinks the United States will be able to accomplish its military goals without boots on the ground and hopes that remains true. While Tuberville said he understands that the Trump administration can’t “take it off the platter.”
On the Democratic side, Figures said he’s fearful that deploying troops could be the next step in the conflict with Iran.
“I lost somebody that I knew in Iraq, and that is not something that we should be taking lightly,” Figures told ADN. “Putting American troops on the ground to fight wars…without congressional approval, it’s dangerous because the consequences and the outcomes are the things that people live with for the rest of their lives.”
The war powers votes in the House and Senate were largely symbolic, as Trump has veto power over the resolutions. It would have taken two-thirds of both chambers of Congress to override him.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.