&w=3840&q=100)
US Senate fails to pass resolution to curb Trump's power to single-handedly escalate war in Iran
The US Senate on Friday failed to pass a resolution that aimed at curbing the powers of US President Donald Trump to escalate the war in Iran and elsewhere read more
President Donald Trump delivers remarks as he hosts a "One, Big, Beautiful" event in the East Room of the White House on June 26, 2025 in Washington, DC. Image- AFP
The US Senate on Friday failed to pass the war-powers resolution, which was intended to curb President Donald Trump's power to escalate the war in Iran or elsewhere single-handedly. The resolution also aims to 'direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran'.
In the Friday voting, it failed to gain any momentum and was voted down 53-47. It is pertinent to note that the resolution was introduced by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. The bill was mainly split along partisan lines. While one Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted for it, one Democrat, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against it.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
' Congress declares war ,' Kaine said in a speech on the Senate floor. He emphasised that the US Constitution, back in 1787, was wary of giving the power to start a war to one person, so much so that they did not even entrust it to George Washington, the first commander-in-chief.
'They decided that war was too big a decision for one person,' Kaine said. 'And so they wrote a constitution that said the United States should not be at war without a vote of Congress.'
What was the bill about
The measure would have compelled Trump to seek authorisation from the US Congress before taking military actions against US adversaries. On 22 June, Trump ordered airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities , escalating tensions in West Asia.
The American strikes directly followed Israel launching attacks on Iran, and Tehran retaliating. Following the strikes, Trump said that the US bombardment 'totally obliterated' key nuclear enrichment facilities and deemed the mission a success. However, some initial reports suggested that the damage was minimal. Iran eventually condemned the attack.
On Friday, Trump claimed that Iran had halted its nuclear ambitions after the bombings. But, he said, he would 'absolutely' continue to attack the country's nuclear sites if he believed it was once again enriching uranium. 'Time will tell,' Trump said at the White House. 'But I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Amid fresh disquiet in Karnataka BJP, rejig buzz as Vijayendra faces turbulence
The recent flurry of visits by senior Karnataka BJP leaders to Delhi to meet the central leadership has again set off speculations in party circles about the possibility of an impending restructuring of the state unit, which may include the appointment of its 'full-fledged chief' and changes in key posts to accommodate rival groups. The performance of current Karnataka BJP president B Y Vijayendra and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the state Assembly R Ashoka is said to have come under the scanner of the central leadership for 'putting up a weak front' against the ruling Congress. Vijayendra, son of BJP heavyweight and ex-chief minister B S Yediyurappa, was appointed as the state party chief on an ad-hoc basis in November 2023. Ahead of the upcoming monsoon session of the state Legislature, the BJP leaders have ruffled the central leadership for their perceived 'adjustment brand of politics' with the Congress on several public issues, sources said. In recent weeks the state BJP has been perceived to have let the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government get away lightly over various rows, including the bid for a new caste survey, corruption cases, and a stampede at the Bengaluru cricket stadium involving the deaths of 11 people in the wake of alleged overenthusiasm shown by Congress leaders to felicitate the IPL winning RCB team. There has been a perception in state political circles that the Siddaramaiah government has faced more resistance from within the faction-ridden Congress rather than the principal Opposition. Some BJP leaders had even felicitated Siddaramaiah in February this year – while seeking funds for development of Bengaluru ahead of the state Budget – in a sign of camaraderie. There have also been concerns in a BJP section that the party is not geared to 'effectively counter pro-minority policies' of the Siddaramaiah dispensation, which has always been at the centre of the party's attack against the Congress. Following the BJP leadership's recent crackdown against a vocal state faction, including the expulsion of dissident leader and ex-Union minister Basanagouda Patil Yatnal, the leadership of Vijayendra and Ashoka was seen as 'unchallenged'. However, various recent developments indicate that the state BJP leadership issues have yet to be fully settled. Former state party chief and CM D V Sadananda Gowda said this week that the situation in the state unit was like a 'tinderbox' waiting to explode. 'Anything we speak is seen in the wrong light even by our own leaders. All our leaders are caught up in their own small spheres. Every day goes by in listening to the voices from these echo chambers. It creates an impression that everything is fine. I would say that everything is not okay. There is bubbling unhappiness in the party in Karnataka,' Sadananda Gowda told reporters. 'We have to come out of this factionalism and disgruntlement. Once we emerge out of this, only then will we have the strength to counter the Congress government,' he said. 'If there has to be a unanimous decision on a party leader for the state, then there should be widespread consultations, which should not be restricted to a few leaders. The state BJP core committee's existence currently is only notional. There are no issue-based discussions in the committee,' Gowda claimed. He also said the practice of the state president holding consultations with the core committee to firm up the party's strategies has come to a halt. 'The decision on whether a candidate identified to be the state president is good or bad has to be decided by the party cadre. This is not happening. Otherwise, appoint a full time president and we will adjust to working with the chosen candidate, but this is also not happening. We cannot understand this,' he said. On his part, Vijayendra has refuted suggestions that his recent visit to Delhi was linked to any possible leadership change. He however expressed hope that the leadership would soon pick a full-time state president and name him for the post. 'We are a national party. Everyone's opinion has been taken. I am confident that I have done a very successful work in the last one-and-a-half years. Our workers and leaders are confident. So it will be good… for you…and me too,' Vijayendra said Thursday in Bengaluru after his return from Delhi. 'Now the elections of 14 state party presidents across the country have been completed. Very soon a decision will be made on six or seven more states,' Vijayendra said. 'The appointment of the party presidents for Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka have not been made,' he noted, claiming that he had gone to Delhi for 'personal reasons' and that other state leaders had done it too. Even LoP Ashok's multiple visits to Delhi could not be seen as a sign of imminent changes, Vijayendra said. 'Ashok is doing a very good job as the Opposition leader. The MLAs are also satisfied with him. However, there is a discussion in the media about a change of Opposition leaders. This is definitely not right,' he argued. 'Those who were expressing dissatisfaction are now out of the party. Some others have expressed small opinions. Union minister Pralhad Joshi and others are working to resolve issues. Everything will be fine,' Vijayendra said. On Sadananda Gowda's remarks, he said, 'Gowda is a senior. I will meet him and discuss with him. I do not agree that it is a tinderbox situation. It is natural to have minor differences of opinion in a party.' The BJP leadership's decision to name Vijayendra as the state ad hoc chief had come months after the party lost power to the Congress in the May 2023 Assembly polls. This was after the party tried to move away from the shadow of Yediyurappa during 2020-2023. The decision sparked resentment in the state party as senior leaders like Yatnal, Basavaraj Bommai, Shobha Karandlaje and C T Ravi were thus forced to follow Vijayendra, a first-time MLA. In January this year, senior BJP leader and Union minister Shivaraj Singh Chouhan had said that an election would be held for the post of the Karnataka BJP president as part of the organisational polls. This resulted in Vijayendra's rivals stepping up their attacks on him. In March, the party leadership expelled Vijayendra's key rival Yatnal, suggesting that it favoured a full three-year term for him. There seems to be a view in a large section of the state BJP that the leadership would not take the risk of dislodging Vijayendra from his post as it could also cost the party a backlash from its main support group — Lingayats to which Yediyurappa and his son belong. There appears to be however some uncertainty about the continuance of Ashok despite the point that he is from the Vokkaliga community, another dominant group in the state.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
25 minutes ago
- First Post
Iran must tread carefully in framing post-ceasefire strategy
As a Persian proverb warns, 'Bravado without power is like a lion's roar from a sheep's throat,' Iran's defiance may echo loudly, but it risks being drowned out by the consequences of its own overreach read more The ceasefire notwithstanding, Iran has a brand new strategic mix for the near future. The first part of Iran's war strategy includes threatening traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which a fifth of the world's oil flows. This is a high-stakes gamble rooted in the sea denial principles of the British naval theorist Julian Corbett. Yet, despite its calculated bravado, Iran's approach is likely to lead to a protracted conflict it cannot win, exposing its strategic vulnerabilities and risking regional escalation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Corbett's sea denial theory, which emphasises disrupting an adversary's control of maritime routes without seeking outright naval dominance, is evident in three facets of Iran's strategy. First, Iran deploys fast-attack boats armed with anti-ship missiles, designed to harass and deter larger naval forces through asymmetric hit-and-run tactics. Second, its naval assets, including submarines and mine-laying vessels, aim to create uncertainty and raise the costs of operating in the Strait. Third, Iran leverages its coastal geography, studded with missile batteries and radar stations, to project power over the narrow waterway, threatening commercial and military shipping alike. These tactics align with Corbett's vision of a weaker navy frustrating a stronger opponent's freedom of movement. Yet Iran's strategy extends beyond the Strait. It is likely to be flanked by the continued threat of missile strikes on American air bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and Iraq, targeting the US military presence that underpins regional security. These attacks, however, are unlikely to yield decisive results. US bases are fortified, with advanced missile defence systems like Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) capable of intercepting most threats. Moreover, such strikes risk galvanising American resolve and international condemnation without significantly degrading US operational capacity. A critical flaw in Iran's plan lies in the geography of the strait itself. Iran controls only the northern half; the southern half is Oman's jurisdiction. This bilateral control severely limits Iran's ability to enforce a complete blockade without provoking Oman or other Gulf states, which would escalate the conflict into a broader regional war. The US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, further tilts the balance. With its carrier strike groups, destroyers, and air superiority, the fleet possesses overwhelming firepower to counter Iran's naval and missile threats. While Iran's asymmetric tactics may cause temporary disruptions, they cannot match the sustained power projection of the US Navy. The Fifth Fleet's ability to secure the Strait, supported by allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, ensures that any Iranian blockade would be short-lived. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's strategy also risks self-inflicted wounds. By threatening to close the Strait, Iran endangers its own energy exports, which account for a significant portion of its revenue. China, Iran's largest oil buyer, would view such disruptions with alarm, as Beijing relies on stable Gulf energy supplies. Unlike Saddam Hussein, who recklessly attacked oil infrastructure during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran is unlikely to repeat this mistake, aware that alienating China and other trading partners would compound its economic woes. Compounding Iran's challenges is its weakened regional position. Its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, are diminished, with the former reeling from Israel's campaigns and the latter constrained by Lebanon's internal chaos. Iran's influence in Syria and Iraq has waned, eroded by local resistance and external pressures. Domestically, Iran's military is hamstrung by sanctions, outdated equipment, and a lack of air superiority—a critical disadvantage against the US and its allies. Yet this weakness makes Iran dangerous. With its prestige at stake, Tehran may feel compelled to double down and break the ceasefire at the earliest. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's gambit in the Strait of Hormuz is thus a paradox: a bold strategy born of vulnerability. As a Persian proverb warns, 'Bravado without power is like a lion's roar from a sheep's throat.' Iran's defiance may echo loudly, but it risks being drowned out by the consequences of its own overreach. The writer is a senior journalist with expertise in defence. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
25 minutes ago
- First Post
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences. On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'
