Congress members split over US attack on Iran
US President Donald Trump speaks during an address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on 4 March, 2025.
Photo:
AFP / SAUL LOEB
By
Richard Cowan
, Reuters
Republican and Democratic members of the US Congress delivered swift reactions to
US bombings of Iranian nuclear facilities
early on Sunday (local time).
The following are statements from key lawmakers:
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, applauded the operation but cautioned that the United States now faced "very serious choices ahead."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, said, "This war is Israel's war, not our war, but Israel is one of our strongest allies and is disarming Iran for the good of the world."
Risch added, "This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran."
"This is not constitutional," conservative Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky said on social media. He was referring to the power of Congress to declare war on foreign countries.
US House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican of Louisiana, said, "The president gave Iran's leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement."
"The president's decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said, "I stand with President Trump."
Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, a daughter of Palestinian immigrants: "President Trump sending US troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of our Constitution. The American people do not want another forever war. We have seen where decades of endless war in the Middle East gets us - all based on the lie of 'weapons of mass destruction'."
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said the US public "is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran" and said Trump displayed "horrible judgement."
Max Rose, a former Democratic member of Congress who now is a senior adviser to the progressive veterans' group "VoteVets," said, "Trump's decision to launch direct strikes against Iran without congressional authorization is illegal." Rose added, "This conflict is his and the Republicans who have abrogated all their responsibilities."
-
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump gambles on war and peace
The United States' bombing of nuclear facilities in Iran has abruptly made the world less safe. According to US president Donald Trump, the world would be safe only if Iran's nuclear threat was stopped. However, United Nations Secretary-general Antonio Guterres warned that the strikes were a "dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge — and a direct threat to international peace and security". There was "a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world." The question everyone is asking is what comes next? No-one knows, perhaps least of all Mr Trump. It is extremely dangerous to blast away when the path ahead is so poorly defined. In the bully world of Mr Trump — who ironically called the Iranian regime the Middle East bully — he believes he holds the trump cards. Iran has little choice but to submit. Its proxy powers in Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria have been emasculated, its economy is in dire straits, and Israel's bombing has weakened it. Logically, Iran should sue for peace. Such calculations ignore human nature. Iran, although its harsh regime is widely unpopular, has been attacked by both arch-enemy Israel and the "imperialist" United States. Nationalism and pride demand that it fights back. The same emotions propel the people to support their government. Israel's stated aim of prompting regime change looks even less likely. And if it does occur, the replacement could be as bad or worse. Iran has been backed into a corner, made to look weak, and its leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, humiliated. The imperative is to respond even if Iran harms its own interests. The forms of retaliation will become apparent in the days ahead. Iran says nothing is off the table. These could include further sponsored terrorism or cyberattacks. While Mr Trump might claim the US is bringing peace by "obliterating" Iran's main nuclear sites in a "spectacular military success", there are doubts about both the extent of the success and how far Iran was along any route to nuclear weapons anyway. Memories of 2003 and the false claims about Iraq and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction immediately and inevitably come to mind. Wars are a lot easier to start than to end. Mr Trump has threatened catastrophic consequences should US bases be attacked. He might also discover that more strikes are required to fulfil the stated aim of wrecking Iran's nuclear capacity. The escalating threats are ominous. Of course, if the fire blazes into an inferno, US air power would soon devastate traditional Iranian armed forces. But what happens then? Another "forever" US war? Another US "quagmire", as Iran has warned. There are also questions about how the US would respond if Iran tried to block a key international oil pipeline, the Strait of Hormuz. While that runs counter to Iran's economic interests, rational decision-making falters in the face of war. Iran has also said that Washington proved "they only understand the language of threat and force". It warned of "everlasting consequences". The West, including New Zealand, treads a cautious line and pushes for de-escalation and diplomacy. Nations also seek to avoid offending the vindictive Mr Trump. The issue of the breach of international law by the US and Israel is dodged. The rules-based order on which small countries like New Zealand rely takes another strike. The UN, yet again, is toothless. Mr Trump, in his first term, blew up a treaty with Iran that endeavoured to restrict its nuclear bomb capacity. What treaty would satisfy him in 2025? Iran's natural reaction, if it was not already doing so, will be to build a nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible, learning lessons from elsewhere. Ukraine must regret giving up its nuclear arsenal voluntarily, and nuclear-armed North Korea is treated with wary caution. Mr Trump, who repeatedly promised to keep his country out of other people's wars, has gambled not only on his presidency and legacy but also on international peace and stability.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Live: Israel strikes Teheran prison, access routes to Iran's Fordow nuclear site
This handout satellite image provided by Maxar Technologies shows the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant in central Iran on 14 June 2025. Photo: AFP Israel has carried out fresh strikes against Iran including on the capital Tehran and the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, a target of the US attack at the weekend. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed the notorious Evin prison had been targeted, alongside several other sites, including the flagship building of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Corps. Iran's air defense systems have been activated to intercept "hostile targets" in Ahvaz city, in the southwest region of the country, state-affiliated Fars News Agency reported today. - CNN / Reuters
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Rising lion of fear and aggression
Leon Goldsmith considers what is next after the United States' air strikes on Iran. On June 13, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched Operation Rising Lion ostensibly against Iran's nuclear programme, inflicting blows on a scale not seen since the devastating Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. Not to be outdone, on Sunday United States President Donald Trump ordered Operation Midnight Hammer, which targeted three of Iran's most important nuclear facilities. This crisis is the result of an inevitable collision course going back decades. On one side is an Iranian regime that has declared its core intention is to annihilate the state of Israel, and on the other a state that is hypersensitive to security threats and prepared to act to subvert them. As leading women's rights campaigner Aida Tavassoli, an Iranian-New Zealander, observed in a recent article, the crisis is being propelled by hyper-masculine leaders including Netanyahu, Trump and the deeply patriarchal rulers of Iran. Netanyahu basked in the glory of the Israeli Air Force and Mossad's military aggression after striking 900 targets at 350 sites in four days and in killing much of the top leadership of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). Trump, rather than taking Netanyahu to task for derailing the latest round of nuclear negotiations scheduled for June 15 in Oman — where he planned to ''strong-arm'' the Iranian negotiators — bristled at becoming a sideshow to the main event. This prompted him to vicariously call for Iran's ''unconditional surrender'' and then renege on his two-week ultimatum by striking within four days. This could be interpreted as a tactical deception but could as likely be impulsive bravado with serious consequences for regional and global security. The Iranian regime is also unlikely to be capable of taking the harder choice to compromise and seek de-escalation but will rather double down on its attacks against Israel and potentially US targets. Another important facet to understand is the cathartic response of Israeli society to the bold strikes against Iran. For four decades, Israelis have been living with a constant fear that the Islamic Republic will some day find a way make good on its promise to annihilate the state of Israel — a fear compounded by the Iran's vast ballistic missile industry and deeply suspected nuclear weapons programme. It is understandable that a large majority of Israelis, including those who virulently oppose Netanyahu in other areas, including the Gaza War, approve of the strikes. Israelis remember the days when Iran was a staunch ally rather than a formidable foe. They dream of a return to the pre-2023 process of regional ''acceptance'' as per the 2020 Abraham Accords. (Another interpretation of the Rising Lion codename is that it refers to the Pahlavi lion which used to adorn Iran's flag.) Another crucial facet, which stands in direct contradiction to Israeli optimism, is a rising psychological response among Middle East populations to images of Israel incurring damage from Iranian missiles penetrating the defence systems, although fatalities remain low due to Israel's highly efficient civil defence warning system. For Arab-Islamic societies there is a sense that the story they have been told by their leaders and the world that Israel is invulnerable was a lie. If so, then the redemption of Arab dignity encompassed in the plight of the Palestinians and their own political powerlessness, battered back down after the Arab Spring of 2011-12, could be within reach. The winds of change in the Arab world started in Syria late last year with the fall of the Al-Assad regime — hence nervousness and expectation prevail for Arab rulers and society respectively. It is too soon to consider the prospect of a post Islamic Republic Iran, although it is hard to imagine the corrupt, geopolitically isolated and ideologically hollow regime fully recovering. But one thing is clear. None of the myriad opposition groups inside and outside Iran would wish for their country's liberation to come on the back of Israeli-US military aggression. What could New Zealand do? New Zealand can take advantage of our distance from the intensity and high emotion of events to provide a perspective that is real rather than repetitive, and helpful and holistic rather than one-sided and incendiary. New Zealand should look to follow a two-track approach to the emerging crisis. On one hand we should look to leverage our anti-nuclear credentials to foster global recommitment to the principles of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In the current global climate, this may unfortunately amount to little more than symbolism. More directly, in the absence of many alternatives, New Zealand could offer its services as a trusted intermediary and facilitator of dialogue in the way that Oman and, to a lesser extent, Qatar (given Israeli hostility) do in the Middle East. Ultimately, it may be that there is little that can be done to arrest the current cycle of conflict. In that case, countries like New Zealand need to be ready to deal with what comes next in a new Middle East. This requires an understanding of the genuine aspirations for dignity and security of Iranians, Israelis, Arabs, women and the myriad other components of the changing Middle East. - Leon Goldsmith lectures in Middle Eastern politics at the University of Otago.
