US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
The Republican-led US Senate rejected a Democratic-led bid on Friday to block Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the President said he would consider more bombing.
The Senate vote was 53 to 47, along party lines, against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran.
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a member of the Senate armed services and foreign relations committees, on introduced the bill last week. The legislation expressed concern about the escalating violence in the Middle East and its potential to pull the US into conflict - which it–ultimately did when Mr Trump ordered strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure days later.
'It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States,' the Democratic senator said. 'I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict."
Asked o' Friday if he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Mr Trump said: 'Sure, without question.'
Passage of the resolution was seen as a long shot. Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and have overwhelmingly stood with the President in support of his decision to strike Iran. There were some fractures in the Make America Great Again movement that seem largely to have healed now that it seems the strikes will not provoke a longer conflict.
Most Republicans hold that Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Mr Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have cast doubt on that justification, arguing the President should have come to Congress first. They also said the President did not update them adequately, with Congress's first briefings taking place on Thursday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
39 minutes ago
- Khaleej Times
Trump says Gaza ceasefire is close, possible within a week
US President Donald Trump said on Friday he believes it is possible that a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict between Israel and Iran-backed Hamas group will be reached within a week. Trump, at an Oval Office event celebrating a Congo-Rwanda accord, told reporters that he believes a ceasefire is close. He said he had been just been talking to some of the people involved in trying to reach a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in the Palestinian enclave. Hamas has said it is willing to free remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel says it can only end if Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms. The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led fighters attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. Gaza's health ministry says Israel's post-Oct.7 military assault has killed over 56,000 Palestinians. The assault has also caused a hunger crisis, internally displaced Gaza's entire population and prompted accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and of war crimes at the International Criminal Court. Israel denies the accusations. Interest in resolving the Gaza conflict has picked up steam in the wake of the US and Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. A ceasefire to the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict went into effect early this week. "I think it's close. I just spoke to some of the people involved," Trump said. "We think within the next week we're going to get a ceasefire." He did not say who he has been talking to, but he has told reporters he was in near-daily contact with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the Israel-Iran conflict. Trump's surprise prediction of a possible ceasefire deal in coming days came at a time when there have been few signs that the warring parties were ready to restart serious negotiations or budge from entrenched positions. A spokesperson for US special envoy Steve Witkoff's office said they had no information to share beyond Trump's comments. Witkoff helped former President Joe Biden's aides broker a ceasefire and hostage release agreement shortly before Trump took office in January but the deal soon unravelled. Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer plans to visit Washington starting on Monday for talks with Trump administration officials about Gaza, Iran and a possible White House visit by Netanyahu, according to a source familiar with the matter. Netanyahu said on Thursday the outcome of Israel's war with Iran presented opportunities for peace that his country must not waste. "This victory presents an opportunity for a dramatic widening of peace agreements. We are working on this with enthusiasm," Netanyahu said in a statement.
Khaleej Times
39 minutes ago
- Khaleej Times
Trump says he would consider bombing Iran again, drops sanctions relief plan
US President Donald Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, on Friday, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. Trump reacted sternly to Khamanei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids last weekend against Iranian nuclear sites. Khamanei said Iran "slapped America in the face" by launching an attack against a major US base in Qatar following the US bombing raids. Khamanei also said Iran would never surrender. Trump said he had spared Khamanei's life. US officials told Reuters on June 15 that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the supreme leader. "His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life," Trump said in a social media post. "I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH," he said. Iran said a potential nuclear deal was conditional on the U.S. ending its "disrespectful tone" toward the Supreme Leader. "If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a post on X in the early hours of Saturday. Trump also said that in recent days he had been working on the possible removal of sanctions on Iran to give it a chance for a speedy recovery. He said he had now abandoned that effort. "I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more," he said. Trump said at a White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again, when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he said. Trump said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency — the UN nuclear watchdog — or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites after they were bombed last weekend. Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to the sites was not as profound as he has said. The IAEA chief, Rafael Grossi, said on Wednesday that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on June 13. However, Iran's parliament approved moves on Wednesday to suspend such inspections. Araqchi indicated on Friday that Tehran may reject any request by the head of the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites. Trump said Iran still wants to meet about the way forward. The White House had said on Thursday that no meeting between the US and an Iranian delegation has been scheduled thus far.
Gulf Today
4 hours ago
- Gulf Today
In win for Trump, Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked his policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually taking effect in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship cases found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling and criticised judges who have issued nationwide orders thwarting his policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump told reporters at the White House, describing these judges as "radical left." On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." Friday's ruling did not rule out all forms of broad relief. A key part of the ruling said judges may provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them. It did not foreclose the possibility that states might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to obtain complete relief. "We decline to take up those arguments in the first instance," Barrett wrote. The ruling left untouched the potential for plaintiffs to also did not a separate path for wider relief through class action lawsuits, but that legal mechanism is often harder to successfully mount. Sotomayor advised parents of children who would be affected by Trump's order "to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class." Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Maryland case filed a motion seeking to have a judge who previously blocked Trump's order to grant class action status to all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate," the lawyers wrote in their motion. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." Reuters
