Democrats block surprise Trump impeachment vote over Iran strikes
A surprise move to impeach President Donald Trump over his recent military strikes on Iran sparked intense backlash among House Democrats on Tuesday.
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) forced a vote on a five-page resolution accusing Trump of violating the Constitution by ordering unilateral strikes on Iranian nuclear sites without congressional approval. Green argued the president "disregarded the doctrine of separation of powers by usurping Congress's power to declare war" and said he had "not one scintilla of regret" for pushing the issue forward.
The resolution was swiftly blocked, with 128 Democrats joining Republicans to stop it from advancing. Only 79 Democrats, largely progressives from solidly blue districts, voted to allow the measure to proceed.
Behind the scenes, Democratic lawmakers expressed anger and exasperation over what many viewed as a poorly timed and counterproductive move.
'It was a completely unserious and selfish move,' one House Democrat told Axios anonymously. Another said there was 'a lot' of frustration among party members, adding, 'I think you heard it from leadership today, they're frustrated.'
'Most people think it's unhelpful,' a third Democrat said. Leadership figures, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), both voted against Green's measure.
The episode highlighted a broader challenge facing House Democrats: balancing grassroots pressure for impeachment with concerns about political fallout among moderate voters.
'It puts people in a difficult situation,' a fourth lawmaker said. 'There are a lot of other things we should be focused on right now,' another added.
Some Democrats argued Green's resolution was weaker than other impeachment attempts, including a recent effort by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) that was similarly unpopular among colleagues. Critics also questioned the legal viability of the resolution.
'We're not even clear the courts would uphold this,' said one Democratic member, pointing to the ongoing constitutional debate over presidential war powers. 'This kind of motion is premature... I just don't think it's ripe.'
Still, a small group of Democrats defended the vote as necessary. Rep. Emily Randall (D-Wash.) said, 'My constituents have been calling for articles of impeachment knowing we don't have the votes to pass them. Part of our job is to put things on the record.'
Thanedar echoed her sentiment, saying bluntly, 'This president should be impeached.'
For his part, Green stood by his decision to force the vote, describing it as a matter of 'conscience.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Jordan News
2 hours ago
- Jordan News
Trump: Good News Coming Regarding Gaza - Jordan News
U.S. President Donald Trump expressed optimism on Wednesday about developments in efforts to end the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. 'I believe significant progress is being made with regard to Gaza,' Trump said, adding, 'And I think the reason is the strike we carried out,' referring to recent U.S. military action against Iran. اضافة اعلان He suggested that the American strikes on Iran could positively influence the broader situation in the Middle East. —(AFP)
Jordan News
2 hours ago
- Jordan News
U.S. Intelligence Assessment Contradicts Trump: Strikes on Iran Didn't Destroy Nuclear Sites - Jordan News
An early U.S. intelligence assessment has concluded that recent American strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities did not destroy the core infrastructure of Iran's nuclear program — contradicting President Donald Trump's claims that the attacks had eliminated Iran's nuclear capabilities. اضافة اعلان According to CNN, which cited four sources familiar with the matter, the evaluation was prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) based on damage analysis conducted by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) following the strikes last weekend. The assessment found that the strikes may have delayed Iran's nuclear program by a few months, but did not eliminate enriched uranium stockpiles or seriously damage centrifuges. One official stated that most of Iran's key centrifuges remained largely intact. Despite these findings, the White House disputed the assessment, calling it 'completely false.' White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told CNN the evaluation was 'leaked by a low-level intelligence figure' and accused them of attempting to discredit Trump and the U.S. military operation. 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds, on their targets — total destruction,' she said. Trump's Claims vs. Intelligence Reality President Trump had repeatedly asserted that the strikes had 'completely destroyed' Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. He emphasized that American pilots had hit their targets precisely, and claimed that the bombed sites were 'wiped out.' Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also echoed this view, stating the strikes had 'eliminated' Iran's nuclear ambitions and that the massive bunker-busting bombs used had struck their intended locations deep beneath the surface. However, the DIA's early analysis suggests otherwise: The key underground facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — which are critical to Iran's nuclear program — were not fully destroyed. The destruction was mostly limited to above-ground infrastructure, including power systems and conversion facilities. Additional Details: The U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers dropped more than a dozen 30,000-pound bombs on Fordow and Natanz. Isfahan was struck using Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine, rather than bunker busters, due to the depth and fortification of the facility. The intelligence suggests Iran still retains secret facilities that weren't hit in the strikes and may still be operational. Strategic Implications Expert Jeffrey Lewis, a weapons analyst at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, confirmed that satellite imagery did not support claims of total destruction. He warned that underground facilities near Natanz, Isfahan, and Parchin remain intact and could allow Iran to quickly rebuild. 'The ceasefire was declared even though neither the U.S. nor Israel succeeded in destroying the deepest underground nuclear sites,' he said. Moreover, classified briefings for Congress about the operation were abruptly canceled, raising suspicions. Congressman Pat Ryan (D-NY) posted on social media that Trump may have called off the briefing to avoid scrutiny, writing: 'He knows his team can't back up his bluster.' Conclusion While the Pentagon maintains the operation was a 'resounding success,' U.S. intelligence paints a more measured picture, suggesting the strikes delayed but did not dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities. The full scope of the operation's impact remains under review, but early signs show that Iran's program may resume sooner than expected, especially given the existence of untouched, fortified, or hidden nuclear sites. This evolving assessment exposes a growing gap between political rhetoric and operational reality, raising new questions about the effectiveness and transparency of the U.S. strategy on Iran.
Jordan News
2 hours ago
- Jordan News
Not a Theatrical Show, but a Game of Political Thrones - Jordan News
In a scene reminiscent of how global powers act when their interests converge with the flames of war, the ceasefire between Israel and Iran stands out as a politically symbolic moment—not only at the regional level but also on the broader stage of the international order. اضافة اعلان While some initially believed that the latest spark between the two sides was nothing more than a political performance or a limited intelligence skirmish, the way de-escalation was managed revealed a deeper truth: this is not merely a border conflict or a covert operation—it is a grand game of major powers, directed by those who control both the opening shot and the final whistle. U.S. President Donald Trump's statements added another dimension to this political reading. While publicly calling for calm and restraint, his concurrent remarks—seen by some as contradictory—carried, in my view, a clear message: no law stands above American law, and the law of power is the ultimate ruler in this equation. At first glance, his rhetoric may have appeared inconsistent—warning against escalation while simultaneously affirming 'the right of the U.S. to protect its interests and allies.' But this was part of a deliberate political tactic by Trump, known for his cryptic, symbolic messaging. He was sending direct signals to regional and global powers that the United States alone holds the decisive say: when war begins, when calm is enforced, and how the next scene will unfold. Trump's message was a practical embodiment of the idea that the United States is not bound by any international standard when it comes to its strategic interests. It can shift the balance, reset the rules of engagement, and redraw the board at will. Thus, the U.S. administration—through Trump's recent statements—has demonstrated that domination doesn't always require open conflict. Sometimes it is enough for Washington to have the authority to ignite or extinguish the flame of war. Trump, long proud of his ability to shape political reality as he pleases, seemed to remind the world that decisions of war and peace in this region—despite the presence of other regional powers—still lie in Washington's pocket. Regardless of who occupies the White House—Democrat or Republican—the U.S. remains the only player capable of triggering or pausing the conflict. Anyone who assumed that the recent clash was an absurd skit or a low-stakes showdown without strategic depth was mistaken. The truth is that it was one of the most calculated political maneuvers in recent times—a litmus test for regional power dynamics, ally preparedness, and adversarial responses, ultimately used to recalibrate the regional tempo in favor of the major players. This wasn't a military parade; it was a double-edged American message. First, to the domestic audience witnessing the perceived decline of U.S. global influence, and second, to both allies and rivals: the U.S.—despite wars or turbulent elections—is still capable of reclaiming the reins of hegemony whenever it chooses. In the end, between bombing and truce, destruction and calm, the grand game continues—coldly strategized from decision-making rooms in Washington—while the peoples of the region bear the cost of geopolitical calculations. A scene that, sadly, will not be the last in the history of this troubled region.
