Potential US military escalation in Iran is a 'coercive lever'
Andreas Krieg, senior lecturer at King's College London, says Israel is shaping Trump's view on Iran's nuclear programme, increasing the risk of US military involvement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
What is the War Powers Act, and can it stop Trump from attacking Iran?
Speaking with reporters on the White House lawn, President Donald Trump played coy when asked if he would bring the United States into Israel's war on Iran. 'I may do it. I may not,' he said on Wednesday. US officials and the president's allies have stressed that the decision to get involved in the war – or not – lies with Trump, stressing that they trust his instincts. 'He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward,' Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday. But antiwar advocates have been arguing that it should not all be up to Trump and Congress must be the ultimate decider over war and peace, according to the US Constitution. As Trump increasingly appears to hint at the possibility of US engagement in the conflict, some lawmakers are seeking to reassert that congressional role under the War Powers Act. But what are the laws guiding a declaration of war, and could Trump get the US involved in the war without the consent of Congress? Here's what you need to know about the laws that govern decisions about war in the US. Section 1 of the US Constitution, which established the legislative branch of the government and outlines its duties, says Congress has the power to 'declare war'. Some advocates take that provision to mean that lawmakers, not the president, have the authority over US military interventions. In 1942, during World War II. Since then, the US has gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq while carrying out strikes and interventions in numerous countries – Serbia, Libya, Somalia and Yemen to name a few. According to Article II of the constitution, the president is designated 'commander in chief' of the armed forces. Presidents have the power to order the military to respond to attacks and imminent threats. Beyond that, their war-making powers are constrained by Congress. Article II empowers them to direct military operations once Congress has authorised a war. They are responsible for mobilising the military under the guidelines of lawmakers. That said, successive presidents have used the ability to direct the military on an emergency basis to carry out attacks that they frame as defensive or in response to threats. Short of a declaration of war, Congress may grant the president powers to use the military for specific goals through legislation known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global 'war on terror'. And one year later, it passed another AUMF allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion. The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. For example, the assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF. During Trump's first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda. Despite the articles outlined in the constitution, presidents have found ways to sidestep Congress in war matters. So in 1973, after decades of US intervention in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia, lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution to reassert their authority over military action. The law restricts the president's war-making powers – or that was its intention at least. It was passed after President Richard Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia, which killed tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians and led to widespread protests in the US. The federal law was designed to limit the US president's power to commit the US to armed conflict. Enacted over Nixon's veto, the resolution requires 'in the absence of a declaration of war' that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless authorisations to extend them are passed. Before US troops are committed abroad, Congress must be consulted 'in every possible instance', it says. Why is the War Powers Act relevant now? With the possibility of a US intervention in Iran mounting, lawmakers have been eyeing the five-decade law and pushing for their own version. On Monday, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a bill requiring that Trump, a Republican, seek authorisation from Congress before ordering military strikes against Iran. That was followed by a similar bill put forward in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by US Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican, and Democrat Ro Khanna of California. A No War Against Iran Act, introduced by Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, seeks to 'prohibit the use of funds for military force against Iran, and for other purposes'. But even as some polls find Trump supporters are against war with Iran, passage of such bills in the Republican-controlled legislature remains unlikely. Why is new legislation needed if it's in the constitution? Despite the constitutional separation of war powers, the executive and legislative branches have jockeyed over those roles throughout US history. The most prominent of these incidents – and the last time such a case made it to the Supreme Court in fact – took place in 1861 at the start of the US Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln blockaded southern ports months before Congress legally declared war on the Confederacy. The highest court eventually ruled the president's acts were constitutional because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks'. Throughout history, formal congressional declarations of war have remained scarce. There have been just 11. Instead, Congress has traditionally authorised a wide range of military resolutions. Almost since its passage, the 1973 law has been viewed by some critics as deeply ineffective – more of a political tool for lawmakers to voice dissent than as a real check on power. (In the 1980s, then-Senator Joe Biden led a subcommittee that concluded the law fell short of its intent.) Congressional resolutions seeking to end military involvements unauthorised by Congress are subject to a presidential veto, which can be overridden only by two-thirds majority votes in the House and the Senate. Others have argued the law served an important role in asserting Congress's rights and creating a framework for speedy, presidential reporting to Congress. The more than 100 reports that have been sent to Congress since 1973 offer a semblance of transparency. While Nixon was the most vociferous in his opposition to the War Powers Act, he's hardly the only president to appear critical. Modern presidents have routinely sidestepped the act, using creative legal arguments to work around its requirements. The executive branch has since steadily expanded its war-making powers, particularly after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The 2001 AUMF and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been used to justify attacks on 'terrorist groups' in at least 19 countries, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation. 'The executive branch has stretched this authorization to cover groups that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, including those such as ISIS [ISIL], which did not even exist at the time,' Heather Brandon-Smith, the nonprofit's legislative director of foreign policy, wrote in a briefing. And while organisations like the International Crisis Group have urged a rehaul or repeal of the AUMF, successive administrations have shown little interest in doing so. In recent years, congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have only begun chipping away at the acts. The Senate in 2023 voted to repeal the 2001 AUMF although the move was largely viewed as symbolic. The House similarly voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF in 2021. But both laws still remain in effect. That remains to be seen, but it does not seem likely. During Trump's first term in office, Congress sought to limit presidential war authority for the first time since the Vietnam War. In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end US support for the Saudi-United Arab Emirates war in Yemen, which Trump quickly vetoed. A year later, a similar situation played out after Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani. In response, both houses of Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president's ability to wage war against Iran. That legislation was vetoed by Trump, and once again, there were not enough Republicans to meet the two-thirds majority necessary in both houses to override the veto. With the balance of power in Congress since then fully shifting to the Republicans in Trump's second term, the newest war powers resolutions face an even stiffer battle.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Israel massacres in Gaza, lockdowns West Bank as attention shifts to Iran
On Thursday, Israeli troops killed at least 16 Palestinians trying desperately to get food in Gaza. On Wednesday, it was at least 29 Palestinians. The day before, at least 70 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces as they gathered at a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) aid distribution site in Khan Younis. They were gunned down by drones, machine gun fire and tanks, according to survivors. On Monday, at least 38 were killed in a similar manner while trying to get food, mostly in Rafah. And on Sunday, at least 17 were killed in southern and central Gaza. The GHF is an Israeli and United States-backed body staffed by private security contractors. Israel set it up in May to replace United Nations-led relief operations, yet dozens of Palestinians have been gunned down on at least eight occasions at GHF sites. 'This happens to some extent every day. It's becoming a routine,' said Yasser al-Banna, a journalist in Gaza. 'Now that Israel has started a war with Iran, everyone here in Gaza is scared that the world is going to forget about them,' he told Al Jazeera. Since Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, global attention on the plight of Palestinians in the occupied territory has faded from the headlines. But Israel has continued to attack Palestinians in Gaza, while conducting deadly raids in the West Bank. After the latest attack on Palestinians desperate for food, analysts and human rights monitors told Al Jazeera that they believe Israel is likely to commit more 'massacres', while prioritising the welfare of Israelis as the war with Iran drags on. 'Israel is using the diverted attention away from Gaza to continue to carry out atrocious crimes against starving civilians,' said Omar Rahman, an expert on Israel and Palestine for the Middle East Council on Global Affairs think tank. 'We have also seen a lot of military and settler activity in the West Bank in recent days,' he told Al Jazeera. Israel's violence against helpless Palestinians at the GHF site on Tuesday resulted in the highest single death toll at any GHF site since the controversial organisation began operations last month. It has been lambasted for what opponents have called the militarisation of humanitarian aid relief. Yet Israel's chokehold siege on the enclave has pushed Palestinians to make an impossible choice: Whither away from hunger or risk their lives to obtain a food parcel. 'Israel's whole GHF scheme is just a way to increase the humiliation of Palestinians,' said Ibrahim Nabeel, a Palestinian medic who has treated victims of the GHF attacks. Along with sustaining its genocidal war in Gaza, Israel has also tightened its occupation over the West Bank since it began attacking Iran. Several Palestinians told Al Jazeera that it is 'impossible to move' from one village or town to another. The entrances to Palestinian villages and cities have been blocked off by Israeli forces, and the number of military checkpoints has increased. The lockdown has spread fear that Palestinians may be suspended from their livelihoods or unable to stock up on basic necessities in case the Israel-Iran war drags on. Many Palestinians have also reported that there is a major fuel crisis throughout the West Bank. 'Most of our basic imports come from Israel … and Israel is prioritising its society, not us,' said Murad Jadallah, a human rights researcher with Al-Haq, a local organisation that advocates for Palestinian rights. Meanwhile, Israel continues to carry out deadly raids across the West Bank. According to the Wafa Palestinian news agency, Israeli troops stormed a village east of Ramallah on June 18. After storming several homes, Israeli troops warned former detainees that they would be arrested again, while others were assaulted, according to Wafa. Over the past week, Israel has also expelled dozens of Palestinians from their homes when they stormed a refugee camp on the outskirts of Nablus city, Jadallah from al-Haq told Al Jazeera. In addition, Israel arrested at least 60 Palestinians across the West Bank between Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, Wafa reported. 'The Israelis are still continuing their raids. Just last night, in fact, they came to our village and arrested a young man and then destroyed his home,' said Layth Barakat, a farmer who lives east of Ramallah. Like much of the world, Palestinians were shocked when Israel attacked Iran. They now worry that Israel will step up its aggression against Palestinians across the occupied territory once it finishes its war with Iran. 'We will pay a high price if Israel wins this war with Iran,' Jadallah said. 'If they can get what they want from Iran or carry out regime change, then who will stop them from achieving their dreams in Gaza and the West Bank?' he added. Prominent far-right ministers in Israel's government have long pushed for Israeli colonisation of Gaza and formally annexing the entire West Bank, an area they call 'Judea and Samaria'. Both of these ambitions are predicated on crushing all hopes for a Palestinian state and overseeing campaigns of ethnic cleansing. For now, Palestinians are just trying to survive, even as their plight garners less attention. Al-Banaa from Gaza said that most people are growing hungrier each day due to Israel's total siege. He said many people stopped buying bags of sesame, which they usually crush to make bread. A large bag of sesame used to cost two shekels ($0.33) before the war in Gaza, yet it now costs about 80 shekels ($23). Al-Banna noted that he can barely afford a meal for himself, his four young children and his wife. However, he still refuses to trek miles to a GHF distribution point. 'I would rather die from hunger than from getting shot,' he said. Rahman, from the Middle East Council, added that Israel's war of aggression against Iran and its war on Gaza should be deeply concerning for everyone, not just Palestinians. 'It is extremely worrying that Israel can get away with everything and anything … and keep its western support base,' he said. 'It is a signal to the Israelis that there are no limits,' he added. 'Israel is wreaking havoc in Palestine, the region, and on the global system.'
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Iraq 2003 vs Iran 2025
Compare & Contrast Iraq 2003 vs Iran 2025 We compare and contrast the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq over alleged weapons of mass destruction with Israel's military strikes on Iran over its nuclear programme.
