Trump justifies Iran attack as Congress raises doubt
According to President Trump, the United States attacked Iran because the Islamic Republic posed “imminent threats” to the United States and its allies, including the use of terrorist proxies and its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.
“His threatening activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our overseas bases and our allies around the world,” he said in a recorded statement Saturday.
Top Democrats in Congress say Trump’s justification is questionable, especially given his claims that he “completely wiped out” Iran’s nuclear capabilities in separate U.S. bombings last June.
“Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes against Iran confirms that this is a war of choice with no strategic purpose,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Connecticut), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and member of a small group of congressional leaders – the Gang of Eight – who were briefed on the operation by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
That divide is bound to remain a political issue heading into this year’s midterm elections, and could be a liability for Republicans — especially as some members of the “America First” wing of the MAGA base raised their own objections, citing Trump’s 2024 campaign promises to get the United States out of foreign wars, not start new ones.
The debate echoes a similar, if less immediate, debate surrounding President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq after the attacks of September 11, 2001, also based on the assertion that “weapons of mass destruction” posed an immediate threat. These claims were later refuted by multiple findings that Iraq had no such arsenal, fueling recriminations in both political parties for years.
The latest division has also intensified unease about Congress ceding its war powers to the White House, which has for years assumed considerable authority to attack foreign adversaries without direct input from Congress in the name of fighting terrorism or preventing immediate harm to the nation or its troops.
Even before the weekend attacks, Democrats, including Sen. Adam Schiff of California, were pushing Congress to pass a resolution barring the Trump administration from attacking Iran without explicit authorization from Congress.
“President Trump must appear before Congress before resorting to military force unless absolutely necessary to defend the United States against imminent attack,” Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, said Thursday.
In justifying the broad daylight strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei two days later, Trump accused the Iranian government of “waging an endless campaign of bloodshed and mass murder” for nearly half a century — including attacks on U.S. military assets and commercial vessels abroad — and of having “armed, trained and financed terrorist militias” in several countries, including Hezbollah and Hamas.
Trump said that after the bombing of Iran last summer, the United States warned Tehran to “never resume” its pursuit of nuclear weapons. “Instead, they have attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and continue to develop long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed abroad, and could soon reach American territory,” he said.
Other Republican leaders have largely supported the president.
“The United States did not start this conflict, but we will end it. If you kill or threaten Americans anywhere in the world – as Iran has done – then we will hunt you down and we will kill you,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said.
“All presidents have spoken about the threat posed by the Iranian regime. President Trump is the one with the courage to take bold and decisive action,” said Atty. General Pam Bondi.
While Iran’s coordination and sponsorship with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are well known, Trump’s claims about Tehran’s continued development of nuclear weapons systems are less established — and the administration has provided little evidence to support them.
Democrats have taken advantage of this lack of new intelligence in their responses to the attacks, contrasting Trump’s latest statements about imminent threats with his assertion after last year’s bombings that the United States had all but eliminated Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
“Let me be clear: The Iranian regime is horrible. But I have not seen any imminent threat to the United States that would justify putting American troops in harm’s way,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the Gang of Eight. “What is the motivation here? Is it Iran’s nuclear program? Their missiles? Regime change?”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that the Trump administration “has failed to provide Congress and the American people with critical details about the scale and immediacy of the threat” and must do so.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Trump administration needed congressional authority to carry out such attacks barring “urgent circumstances” and did not have it.
“The Trump administration must immediately explain itself to the American people and Congress, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly and prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” he said.
After the U.S. military announced Sunday that three American service members were killed and five others seriously injured in the attacks, demands for a clearer justification and new constraints on Trump have only grown.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said Sunday he is optimistic that Democrats will be united in trying to pass the war powers resolution, and also that some Republicans will join them, given that the strikes have been unpopular among some of the MAGA base.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who joined forces with Khanna to force the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files, said he would work with him again to push Congress to vote on war with Iran, which he said was “not ‘America First.’
Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at UCLA’s Burkle Center for International Relations, said whether or not Iran poses an “imminent” threat to the United States depends not only on its nuclear capabilities, but also on its broader desire and ability to inflict pain on the United States and its allies — as was made clear to the United States and Israel after the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, including Iran praised.
“If you’re Israel or the United States, it’s imminent,” he said.
What happens next, Radd said, will largely depend on whether Iran’s remaining leaders stick to Khamenei’s hard line or decide to negotiate again with the United States. He expects them to do the latter, because “this is a fundamentalist regime, it is not a suicidal regime,” and it is now clear that the United States and Israel have the capabilities to eliminate Iran’s leaders, that Iran has little ability to defend itself, and that China and Russia are not rushing to its aid.
How strikes are perceived in the future may also depend on what those leaders decide to do next, said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iranian and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute.
If the conflict remains relatively contained, it could become a political victory for Trump, without questions about its justification disappearing. But if the situation gets out of control, these issues are likely to escalate, as happened in Iraq when the situation began to deteriorate, he said.
Israel and the United States are betting that the conflict will remain manageable, which may prove true, Harris said, but “the problem with war is you never really know what might happen.”
On Sunday, Iran launched retaliatory attacks against Israel and the Gulf region. Trump said the campaign against Iran continued “unabated,” although he might be willing to negotiate with the country’s new leaders. It was unclear when Congress might pass the war powers measure.
