Latest news with #AuthorizationforUseofMilitaryForce
Chicago Tribune
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Regarding the US bombing of Iran, war does not lead to peace
As a young boy, I remember hearing of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor over the radio on Sunday afternoon, Dec. 7, 1941. 'A date that will live in infamy,' President Franklin Delano Roosevelt later told the nation. Now, over 80 years later, June 21, 2025, I have a similar and surely more mature feeling of shock and dismay. Without being attacked, without a declaration of war, our president has chosen to enter this unending conflict in the Middle East. And he has declared that 'now is the time for peace.' Japanese Emperor Hirohito was not delusional enough to say such a thing after the surprise attack on the U.S. fleet. War does not lead to peace. It certainly did not in Vietnam or in Iraq. 'For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.' How many of our children and grandchildren will discover this as the Middle East conflict continues with our involvement and complicity? May God forgive us and have mercy on our souls. And on the soul of President Bill Clinton authorized NATO to bomb Serbia for several months in 1999, a necessary move to stop Belgrade from the killings in Kosovo, he did not do it with authority from Congress. In 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered the execution of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, he didn't go through Congress. What he did was rely on a 2001 law passed by Congress called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to act against terrorism. Now, as to the bold bombings in Iran, it could be argued the AUMF doesn't apply, because Iran hasn't terrorized the United States, but that isn't true. We lost service members in 1983 in Beirut, thanks to Iran's proxy Hezbollah, and not that long ago in Iraq, too, by direct Iranian action. The repercussions are anyone's guess, and that was true in 2011 when some feared what bin Laden's assassination would provoke. Yet regardless of the opposition to U.S. intervention in Iran from the isolationists and progressives — who wouldn't dare claim Iran's nuclear program is peaceful — was President Donald Trump overstepping his legal boundaries? Probably difficult for me to understand why some members of Congress think that President Donald Trump needed congressional approval to bomb Iran's nuclear-enriching plant sites. Some have even gone so far as to suggest his action might be considered an impeachable act. This is ridiculous! The president has the power to take whatever action he or she deems necessary to protect American interests. Moreover, it's my understanding that key members of Congress were briefed ahead of the actions. No doubt Congress has a right to challenge the president to explain his reasoning, and if further action is required, he must seek congressional approval. So, let's stop wasting time trying to claim that Trump exceeded his authority and concentrate on the more important question: Where do we go from here?So we commit an act of war without congressional approval by bombing Iran. Now the world clearly sees that we are no better than Vladimir Putin and Russia. And by the way, when will this Congress grow a backbone?Is President Donald Trump so stupid that he didn't realize by attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, he is bringing the U.S. closer to a nuclear war? Our enemies in the Far East are just waiting for a reason to attack the U.S. North Korea could see this attack on Iran as an golden opportunity to attack the U.S. by allying with Iran. Am I the only one who thinks that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's goal is to dominate the Middle East? He has destroyed Gaza and killed thousands of Muslims. He is now focusing his attention on tensions between Israel and Iran reach dangerous new levels, the United States must confront the consequences of its growing military involvement. The U.S. participating in strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — on behalf of Israel — and claiming 'obliteration' of Iran's nuclear program without providing evidence are deeply troubling. Such actions don't promote peace; they incentivize nuclear proliferation. Iran, once a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, now has every reason to believe that nuclear weapons are the only way to deter attacks. That logic mirrors what we've seen in North Korea, a country far more volatile and dangerous — yet untouched militarily — precisely because it already has nuclear weapons. Our current approach sends a disturbing message to the world: If you don't want to be bombed, develop a nuclear arsenal. This is not security policy — it's an arms race blueprint. And with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubling down on military solutions, we must ask: What country will Israel target next? Lebanon? Syria? Turkey? Iraq? At what point will any American administration say: Enough is enough? Unquestioned U.S. support for Israel's most aggressive actions is not sustainable. It risks dragging us into wider regional conflict, undermines global nonproliferation goals and destabilizes diplomatic progress for generations to come. We are not just enabling war — we are normalizing it. The American public deserves better than vague justifications and open-ended entanglements. It's time to demand clarity, accountability and, above all, the editorial 'US bombs fall in Iran' (June 22): The Tribune Editorial Board would have 'preferred' congressional involvement in the act-of-war bombing of Iranian nuclear sites? The board does recall that the Constitution requires an act of Congress to declare war? The board does understand that we are now at war with Iran without such an act of Congress, regardless of President Donald Trump's desire for 'peace' (unconditional surrender)? Trump intends to supersede any constitutional limit on his powers, and this act is only the latest of his efforts to do so. Something stronger than the board's preference is wrote the editorial on President Donald Trump's bombing attack of Iran? 'We would have preferred the President had given more time to diplomacy. … We prefer that the President of the United States keep his word. And we would have preferred the involvement of Congress.' 'Prefer'? What a juvenile, anemic word to describe this rogue president's action! And when the board describes Israel wanting regime change, given Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's repression of women, his stealing of elections, his meeting of dissent with violence and his denouncement of opposing voices, does the board not see parallels to what is happening here in America? So bomb and say this is the time for peace? Why don't all the rich potentates, sheiks, oligarchs and MAGA dictators meet and fix it? Leave the innocents, the children, the ones who just want to live a simple life, out of the bombing and destruction. This president creates more hate every day.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Here's how Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016
Then-U.S. President Barack Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs on seven countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — in 2016 alone. We determined this by looking at data from the U.S. Air Force, Council for Foreign Relations, the Long War Journal and the New America Foundation. Obama did not obtain an act from Congress to conduct his military operations; however, his actions were not illegal. Congress passed a broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to approve war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, which Obama relied on to justify his military activities. However, Obama stretched use of the 2001 AUMF to target militant groups that either did not exist on Sept. 11, 2001, or were not al-Qaida affiliates. U.S. presidents have repeatedly conducted military activities in other countries without seeking approval from Congress. President Donald Trump justified military activities during his first administration by citing the AUMF as well. As U.S. President Donald Trump authorized surprise airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 without seeking congressional approval, many of his defenders pointed out that former President Barack Obama carried out similar actions during his presidency. Conservative podcaster Alec Lace wrote on X: 2016 - Barack Obama dropped 26,171 bombs on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan without Congress Approval 2025 - Donald Trump dropped 36 bombs on Iran nuclear sites without Congress Approval Guess which one libs are mad about? The above claim about Obama is technically correct in that he did not obtain an act of Congress to conduct his military activities, though numerous presidents — including Trump — have done the same. We looked through old databases and reports about Obama's airstrikes and drone warfare program conducted with coalition partners through the year 2016 to confirm the number of strikes he authorized. However, Obama relied on an Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress issued in 2001 to target al- Qaida and the Taliban as a legal basis for his administration's military actions. In June 2025, Trump sent stealth aircraft into Iran with so-called Massive Ordinance Penetrator "bunker buster bombs" to reach concealed sites. Per a Pentagon briefing, around 75 precision-guided weapons were used in the overall operation, which included missiles sent by a U.S. submarine toward Isfahan. Around 14 of the bunker busters hit their targets. In 2014, the U.S. along with a number of coalition partners began Operation Inherent Resolve against the militant Islamic State group. The U.S. conducted numerous airstrikes in Iraq and Syria using both manned and unmanned aircraft, including drones. According to data from the U.S. Air Force Central Command, in 2016 the coalition dropped a total of 30,743 weapons in Iraq and Syria. According to an analysis by the think tank Council for Foreign Relations, the U.S. carried out 79% of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in 2016 and was responsible for 24,287 of these bombs. In addition, through Operation Enduring Sentinel in Afghanistan, the U.S. dropped a total of 1,337 weapons through both manned and unmanned aircraft, according to data collected by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent media outlet. Data from the Long War Journal — part of the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank — and the liberal think tank New America also found the U.S. conducted around 513 strikes in Libya, 43 in Yemen, 14 in Somalia, and 3 in Pakistan in 2016. This data didn't give the exact numbers of weapons used. Regardless, keeping in mind the number of strikes in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, as well as the quantity of weapons used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the total still amounts to more than 26,000 bombs in seven countries in just 2016. Trump is not the first president who did not get congressional consent to carry out military actions in another country. In 1950, President Harry Truman used his authority to send U.S. troops to defend South Korea along with a U.N. Security Council resolution, but no authority from Congress. In 1980s, President Ronald Reagan ordered military force in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon, and in 1989 President George H.W. Bush directed the invasion of Panama to topple the dictator Manuel Noriega. According to a National Constitution Center analysis, while the U.S. Constitution gives the president the title of commander in chief of all armed forces, only Congress can declare war. Over the years, presidents have broadly interpreted their roles as commander in chief and often used it to bypass Congress. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to ensure Congress had a role in approving U.S. involvement in any armed conflicts. However, Congress has also passed numerous Authorizations for the Use of Military Force that give the president the ability to carry out limited and clearly defined military actions. In practice, however, these AUMFs have been interpreted broadly to justify all kinds of military actions. In 2001, Congress passed an AUMF authorizing military actions against "those responsible for the recent [Sept. 11, 2001] attacks against the United States." In 2002, Congress passed another AUMF calling for the use of military force against Iraq. When Obama ordered military intervention in 2011 in Libya without congressional approval, he said his actions did not fall under the War Powers Resolution. A 2016 analysis by left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress found that the Obama administration had continued to use this justification for drone strikes: "Congress initially authorized war against al-Qaida and the Taliban in its 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, and the Obama administration continues to rely on that AUMF as congressional authority for ongoing military operations." The Council for Foreign Relations also evaluated the legality of Obama's drone strikes in 2017. It found that the 2001 AUMF had been "stretched" by the Obama administration to "justify strikes against terror groups that either did not exist on 9/11, or are unaffiliated with al-Qaida. Yet, the AUMF remains the domestic legal underpinning for all U.S. military actions against Islamist terrorists." A 2016 paper by a pair of Duke and Harvard Law School professors, Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith, on "Obama's AUMF Legacy" noted that Obama initially wanted to repeal the 2001 AUMF, but by the end of his presidency it acted as the legal underpinning for his military actions: Despite massive changes in the geographical scope of the conflict that began on 9/11, the strategy and tactics employed, and the identity of the enemy, the AUMF remains the principal legal foundation under U.S. domestic law for the president to use force against and detain members of terrorist organizations. The AUMF is already the longest operative congressional authorization of military force in U.S. history, and, as of fall 2016, there was no immediate prospect that Congress would move to repeal or update it. With the continued vibrancy of Al Qaeda, its associates, and the Taliban, and with the 2014 presidential extension of the AUMF to cover military operations against the Islamic State, the AUMF is likely to be the primary legal basis for American uses of force for the foreseeable future. […] For many years, President Obama proclaimed that he wanted to repeal the AUMF and end the AUMF-authorized conflict. By the closing year of his presidency, however, his administration had established the AUMF as the legal foundation for an indefinite conflict against Al Qaeda and associated groups and extended that foundation to cover a significant new conflict against the Islamic State. In 2014 and 2015, Obama did try to get Congress to pass an updated AUMF for his ongoing war against the Islamic State. In February 2015, he sent Congress a draft AUMF, but disagreements over how it would limit the powers of a future U.S. president, and even Obama, meant the measure stalled. In 2020, Trump also cited the 2002 AUMF as the legal justification for the Jan. 2, 2020, U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Obama did use more than 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone against seven countries. However, while he did not get congressional approval at the time, he relied on older congressional authorizations as the legal basis for such strikes, a practice that Trump also continued. "Afghanistan: Reported US Air and Drone Strikes 2016." TBIJ, Accessed 24 June 2025. "America's Counterterrorism Wars." New America, Accessed 24 June 2025. Bradley, Curtis A., and Jack L. Goldsmith. "Obama's AUMF Legacy." The American Journal of International Law, vol. 110, no. 628, 2016, Accessed 24 June 2025. Combined Forces Air Component Commander 2014-2021 Airpower Statistics. U.S. Air Force Central Command, 30 Nov. 2021, Accessed 24 June 2025. Crowley, Michael, and Edward Wong. "Is the U.S. at War With Iran? What to Know About Trump, Congress and War Powers." The New York Times, 22 June 2025. Accessed 24 June 2025. "Does the President Need Congress to Approve Military Actions in Iran? | Constitution Center." National Constitution Center – Accessed 24 June 2025. Elsea, Jennifer. "Defense Primer: Legal Authorities for the Use of Military Forces." U.S. Congress, 10 Dec. 2024, Accessed 24 June 2025. "Evaluating the Obama Administration's Drone Reforms." Council on Foreign Relations, 31 Jan. 2017, Accessed 24 June 2025. Fowler, Stephen. "Trump Administration Defends Iranian Strikes as Some Lawmakers Question Its Legality." NPR, 22 June 2025. NPR, Accessed 24 June 2025. Glass , Andrew. "United States Invades Panama, Dec. 20, 1989." Politico, 20 Dec. 2018, Accessed 24 June 2025. "Hegseth, Caine Laud Success of U.S. Strike on Iran Nuke Sites." Department of Defense, 22 June 2025, Accessed 24 June 2025. Herb, Jeremy. "Congress War Authorization: Where We Last Left off." CNN, 7 Apr. 2017, Accessed 24 June 2025. " - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." U.S. Congress. Accessed 24 June 2025. "Interpretation: Declare War Clause." National Constitution Center. Accessed 24 June 2025. Kheel, Rebecca. "Trump Administration Outlines Legal Justification for Soleimani Strike." The Hill, 14 Feb. 2020, Accessed 24 June 2025. Liptak, Kevin. "Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites Thrust US into Escalating Middle East Conflict." CNN, 22 June 2025, Accessed 24 June 2025. Martin, Kate. "Are U.S. Drone Strikes Legal?" Center for American Progress, 1 Apr. 2016, Accessed 24 June 2025. "Operation Enduring Sentinel Lead Inspector General Quarterly Report to Congress, January 1, 2024—March 31, 2024." Office of Inspector General. Accessed 24 June 2025. "Public Law 107–40." U.S. Congress, 18 Sept. 2001, Accessed 24 June 2025. "US Airstrikes in the Long War." FDD's Long War Journal, Accessed 24 June 2025. "What We Know about US Air Strikes on Three Iranian Nuclear Sites." BBC, 23 June 2025, Accessed 24 June 2025. "Who We Are." Operation Inherent Resolve, Accessed 24 June 2025. Zenko, Micah and Jennifer Wilson. "How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016?" Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed 24 June 2025.
The Herald Scotland
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
What would lead to a military draft? Fears following Iran bombings
In a June 22 Truth Social post, President Donald Trump said he was open to a regime change in the country, hours after Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. did not want a regime change. There are currently no bills before Congress to institute a draft, however the Washington Post reported last year that influential former administration officials as well as some GOP lawmakers have publicly suggested a "national service mandate." Here's what you need to know about a possible military draft. Fallout of US attack on Iran: US warns of 'heightened threat environment' after strikes on Iran nukes When was the last time the draft was used? The last draft call occurred in 1972, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine, and the draft was announced to be no longer in use by then Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird on Jan. 27, 1973. The final person inducted into the U.S. military - Dwight Elliott Stone, a 24-year-old apprentice plumber from Sacramento, California, - entered the Army on June 30, 1973, according to the magazine. Who would be in charge of reinstating the draft? Legislation would need to be passed through Congress amending the Military Selective Service Act in order to reinstate a draft, according to the Selective Service Agency. In 2015, then New York Democratic Representative Charles Rangel introduced a bill to re-instate a draft alongside a "War Tax" bill to point out the inequity of war as then President Barack Obama attempted to galvanize support for an Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "When I served, the entire nation shared the sacrifices through the draft and increased taxes. But today, only a fraction of America shoulders the burden. If war is truly necessary, we must all come together to support and defend our nation," Rangle, who served in the Korean War, said in a statement at the time, according to The Hill. Who would be eligible for a draft? Currently, all men between 18 to 25 are required to register with the Selective Service System. The Selective Service Agency states that, should a draft be reinstated, the first to receive induction orders would be those whose turn 20 years old during the year of the lottery. Additional drafts would follow for those turning 21 through 25, then 19 and 18 would occur if additional soldiers were required. Who would be ineligible for the draft? All of those who have registered with the Selective Service are presumed to be eligible to be drafted. The only exemptions from Selective Service registration are if a man: Is placed in a hospital, nursing home, long-term care facility, or mental institution on or before his 18th birthday, had no breaks of institutionalization of 30 days or longer, and remained institutionalized until his 26th birthday. Is confined to his home, whether his own or someone else's (including group homes), on or before his 18th birthday and cannot leave the home without medical assistance and remained homebound until his 26th birthday. A draftee could request to be reclassified, including as a conscientious objector, after he is drafted but before the day he is due to report. High school and college students can ask for service to be postponed while draftees can request hardship deferments. Ministers, certain elected officials and some dual nationals would be exempt from the draft.
The Hill
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
President Trump should end Iran's endless war on the world
For more than 40 years, Iran has waged a relentless shadow war against the U.S., its allies, and the free world. From the 1979 hostage crisis to its proxy terrorism, from nuclear brinkmanship to the chants of 'Death to America,' from cyberattacks to assassination plots, Tehran's aggression has been unyielding. Amid the clamor of diplomatic platitudes and partisan squabbles, a clear truth stands out: It is both a moral imperative and a cornerstone of American survival to end this endless war — not through appeasement, but through resolute strength. Iran is not a regional irritant but a global predator. Its threats are not theoretical. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and it has American blood on its hands. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has fueled attacks through such proxies as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, killing hundreds of U.S. servicemembers — 603 in Iraq alone, according to a 2019 Pentagon report. Its militias target our bases, its assassins target our leaders, its cyber-assaults probe our infrastructure, and its leaders openly promise our destruction. President Trump has full constitutional and statutory authority to respond to attacks against the U.S. without waiting for congressional permission. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 makes that clear. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force reinforces it. There is bipartisan agreement — even if it is selectively remembered. Why trust Trump to end this threat? Because unlike the armchair critics obsessed with avoiding so-called 'endless wars,' Trump actually has a record of strategic restraint paired with decisive action, prioritizing targeted operations over prolonged engagements. For example, he hit the Houthis for six weeks, not six years. He took on ISIS, dismantled its caliphate in two years, and walked away. He took out Qassem Soleimani — arguably the most dangerous terrorist on the planet at the time — and avoided the regional war that everyone said would follow. He did the same with Qasim al-Raymi, the leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He pushed back on al-Shabaab in Somalia, and then exited on his own terms. So Trump is not known to start wars. He responds to and ends threats — with precision, resolve and zero appetite for forever conflicts. That's not warmongering — that's peace through strength. The stakes are escalating. Iran's imminent pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens to upend the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Tehran would spark a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey racing to match it. Our troops in Qatar, Bahrain and Iraq would face immediate danger. Iran's terror networks, shielded by a nuclear deterrent, would strike with impunity. Ending Iran's war on the world does not mean diving into another quagmire. It demands a strategy of strength: airtight sanctions, unwavering support for allies like Israel, and targeted measures to disrupt Iran's nuclear and terror networks. Israel stands as our forward shield, delivering intelligence and military innovations like Iron Dome that bolster our own defenses. U.S. aid to Israel, spent on American defense jobs, is an investment in our security. To abandon this partnership is not restraint — it is folly. Some argue for disengagement, claiming Iran's threats are someone else's burden. But when a regime targets our shores, isolationism is a delusion. An emboldened Iran would choke oil routes through the Strait of Hormuz, spiking prices and hitting American wallets. It would deepen ties with Russia, China and North Korea, forming an anti-Western axis. Cyberattacks, terror plots and economic shocks would follow. Ignoring Iran doesn't neutralize it — it brings it closer to home. Others push for endless diplomacy, as if words alone can sway a regime built on defiance. Negotiation has its place, but only when backed by unrelenting pressure. Weakness invites aggression; strength compels restraint. Iran, Russia and China are watching. If we falter, our global deterrence unravels, inviting conflicts far costlier than the resolve we muster today. Ending Iran's endless war is the very essence of 'America First.' It means protecting our people, our prosperity and our principles by confronting a regime that has terrorized the world for too long. It means standing with allies who share our fight, not leaving them to face our mutual enemies alone. With Trump's proven resolve, we can act with the moral clarity to secure peace — not as a hope, but as a victory, won through courage and conviction. But the clock is ticking. Iran's war on the world has raged for four decades. It is time to end it — not with wishful thinking, but with the strength that safeguards our future. Mark Goldfeder is an international lawyer and a law professor at Touro University
