U.S. House votes to rein in Trump's war powers as U.S.-Iran tensions stay high

[webfact]

U.S. House votes to rein in Trump's war powers as U.S.-Iran tensions stay high

By Patricia Zengerle and Ahmed Aboulenein

 

U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence speak with senior White House advisors during a meeting about an Iran missile attack on U.S. military facilities in Iraq, in the Situation Room of the White House, Washington, U.S., January 7, 2020. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday to stop President Donald Trump from further military action against Iran as the Middle East remained tense after the U.S. killing of a top Iranian commander and Iran's retaliatory missile strikes.

 

The resolution passed 224-194 along party lines in the Democratic-controlled House with nearly all Republicans opposed. The measure orders termination of Trump's war powers to use U.S. armed forces against Iran without Congress' consent.

 

The measure now goes to the Senate, which is controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and faces an uphill battle.

 

The vote came just hours after Trump said that Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Iraq last week last because he had planned to blow up a U.S. embassy.

 

"We caught a total monster and we took him out and that should have happened a long time ago. We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy," Trump told reporters at the White House.

 

His remarks seemed to shed more light on what so far have been largely vague descriptions of the intelligence that drove Trump's conclusion that killing Soleimani and disrupting his plots would be better than any fallout Washington may face.

 

A White House spokesman called the House-passed war powers measure "ridiculous" and politically motivated. The measure "could undermine the ability of the United States to protect American citizens whom Iran continues to seek to harm," an administration policy statement said.

 

But if passed by the Senate, the measure does not need Trump's signature to go into effect.

 

Potentially stepping up international pressure on Tehran, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. officials said they believed a Ukrainian passenger plane that crashed in Iran on Wednesday was brought down by Iranian air defences by mistake hours after Iran launched its missiles attacks.

 

Trump said he had suspicions about the cause of the Ukrainian Boeing 737-800 plane crash, adding: "Somebody could have made a mistake.".

Iran denied the reports of missiles downing the plane.

 

NEXT MOVE?

Earlier on Thursday, Iran spurned Trump's call for a new nuclear pact, and its commanders threatened more attacks, fuelling worries that an apparent pause in U.S.-Iran conflict could be short-lived.

 

But each side's next move was uncertain. Iranian generals resumed their habitual barrage of warnings to Washington, and Trump said new sanctions had been imposed, as his Democratic rivals criticized his handling of the crisis.

 

Iran fired missiles on Wednesday at bases in Iraq where U.S. troops were stationed in retaliation for Soleimani's killing in a U.S. drone attack of in Baghdad on Jan. 3.

 

Trump said no U.S. troops had been harmed in the strikes and Iran "appears to be standing down," adding that Washington did not want to use its "great military."

 

The tit-for-tat actions followed months of tension that has increased since Trump pulled the United States out of Iran's nuclear pact with world powers in 2018 and reimposed sanctions that have driven down Tehran's vital oil exports.

 

Trump said it was time for world powers to replace the 2015 nuclear pact with a new deal so Iran could "thrive and prosper."

 

'ECONOMIC TERRORISM'

Responding to Trump's call for a new nuclear deal, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi said Tehran could not trust any idea of dialogue when faced with the "economic terrorism" of sanctions, Iranian media reported.

 

Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards also issued new threats to Washington, with one senior commander warning of "harsher revenge soon" and another saying Wednesday's missile strikes were only the start of a series of attacks across the region.

 

Brigadier General Esmail Ghaani, the new head of the Quds Force, which runs Iran's foreign military operations, said he would follow the course pursued by his slain predecessor Soleimani.

 

Soleimani carved out a sphere of Iranian influence running through Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, challenging regional rival Saudi Arabia as well as the United States and Israel.

 

Soleimani was a national hero whose funeral drew vast crowds of mourners. The West saw him as a dangerous and ruthless enemy.

 

The military comments contrasted with Wednesday's remarks by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who said Tehran did not want an escalation.

 

Analysts say that in an election year, Trump wants to avoid getting into a drawn-out conflict. In turn, Iran will try to avert direct confrontation with superior U.S. forces but can call on proxy militias across the region as U.S. sanctions bite.

 

"I'm not expecting further direct attacks from Iran. We are likely to see more indirect responses through proxies," said Ali Alfoneh, senior fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.

 

He said there might be a chance for a negotiated solution to the latest standoff as "the Trump administration does not appear to actively pursue a war and Iran needs sanctions relief."

 

(Reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein and Ahmed Rasheed in Baghdad, Babak Dehghanpisheh, Parisa Hafezi and Ghaida Ghantous in Dubai, Jeff Mason in Washington; Writing by David Lawder and Edmund Blair; Editing by William Maclean, Alistair Bell and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-10

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Ricohoc]

Matters not.  Just another political attack. 

[zydeco]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Trump said . . . Iran "appears to be standing down," adding that Washington did not want to use its "great military."

If you believe that, I've got a 409K to sell you.

[thaibeachlovers]

Means nothing unless the senate sends it to Trump to sign.

[Sujo]

That constitution is a real stumbling block for trump and repubs.

 

Sarah sanders said words to the effect that it would be the dumbest things to do.

 

Perhaps she should learn to read before she disses the constitution.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Means nothing unless the senate sends it to Trump to sign.

I think you’ll find the Constitution does not need Senate or Presidential approval, rather both Senate and President take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

And the Constitution states Congress holds the power to wage war.

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think you’ll find the Constitution does not need Senate or Presidential approval, rather both Senate and President take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

And the Constitution states Congress holds the power to wage war.

Trump in not waging war on Iran anymore than Obama was waging war on Libya when he attacked them without congressional approval. 
 

 

[Baerboxer]

31 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Trump in not waging war on Iran anymore than Obama was waging war on Libya when he attacked them without congressional approval. 
 

 

 

Ah, but the poster you replied to likes Obama because he was left wing, a Democrat. Whilst as a right wing Republican, anything Trump does is automatically bad and unconstitutional.

 

If you check, most of his posts show the same bias thread. Left Good Right Bad. 

[melvinmelvin]

 

Right decision taken on the hill.

 

But is it well defined what constitues a so called war and what does not constitue a war?

 

 

[IAMHERE]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Means nothing unless the senate sends it to Trump to sign.

It's a race, which gets to the Senate first; the impeachment papers or this klaptrap?  Yes, that's right; the articles of impeachment are still in Polosi's purse.

[Mick501]

The monster Trump ordered dead plotted to blow up an embassy.   Imagine if the Clinton administration had taken out bin laden after he did exactly that in 1998.   No 9/11, no Iraq, no Afghanistan, no ISIS.   

 

Now they hey are refusing to learn from history and trying again in their laughable attempts to score political points.   And they really think there are enough stupid people to achieve a majority with this strategy.  That's what comes of developing strategy by listening to Hollywood and CNN.

[timendres]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Means nothing unless the senate sends it to Trump to sign.

OP: "But if passed by the Senate, the measure does not need Trump's signature to go into effect."

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Ah, but the poster you replied to likes Obama because he was left wing, a Democrat. Whilst as a right wing Republican, anything Trump does is automatically bad and unconstitutional.

 

If you check, most of his posts show the same bias thread. Left Good Right Bad. 

Well done, you spotted my political views are left of center.

 

 

[30la]

A president should never have so much power, an insane freak like Trump should be convinced to resign, better for the world and the USA!

[jany123]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

Trump in not waging war on Iran anymore than Obama was waging war on Libya when he attacked them without congressional approval. 
 

 

Wasn’t the Obama initiative subsequent to a UN resolution giving the US military command over an internationally approved intervention?

 

if true.... then significant differences exist between Obama and the trumps actions.... it even took the opposition a few months to react with failing resolutions, didn’t it?

 

if NATO assume control of this operation, as was done in Libya.... maybe you could suggest equivalences.... but NATO ain’t going to touch this distrumpian future

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

Wasn’t the Obama initiative subsequent to a UN resolution giving the US military command over an internationally approved intervention?

 

if true.... then significant differences exist between Obama and the trumps actions.... it even took the opposition a few months to react with failing resolutions, didn’t it?

 

if NATO assume control of this operation, as was done in Libya.... maybe you could suggest equivalences.... but NATO ain’t going to touch this distrumpian future

I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I don’t see that it makes a difference if it is. All I said was Trump was not declaring war anymore than Obama was. 
 

Trump ordered a know terrorist Be killed that (as I understand) the UN had ordered not to leave Iran. 
 

He has been on a kill list for years. Again, had Obama taken him out, the reporting would have been quite different. 
 

I don’t recall any big condemnation of the hundreds of drone strikes Obama ordered. 
 

 
 

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Mick501 said:

Left of far left would be a more self aware description.  Then again, self awareness has never been a strong suit for the left.

Why the attacking of someone who disagrees with you personally I think trump is unsuited temperamentally to be potus I’m glad the Iranian general is dead that beeing said if trump dident break the nuclear agreement the embassy wouldent have been trashed the airliner wouldent have been shot down ect ect cause and effect that’s not right or left that’s what happened that imo is beeing sielf aware 

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, Mick501 said:

The monster Trump ordered dead plotted to blow up an embassy.   Imagine if the Clinton administration had taken out bin laden after he did exactly that in 1998.   No 9/11, no Iraq, no Afghanistan, no ISIS.   

 

Now they hey are refusing to learn from history and trying again in their laughable attempts to score political points.   And they really think there are enough stupid people to achieve a majority with this strategy.  That's what comes of developing strategy by listening to Hollywood and CNN.

Who said he plotted to blow up the embassy. The deep state trump has cried about for the last 3 years? Now he trusts them?

[mogandave]

59 minutes ago, Tug said:

Why the attacking of someone who disagrees with you personally I think trump is unsuited temperamentally to be potus I’m glad the Iranian general is dead that beeing said if trump dident break the nuclear agreement the embassy wouldent have been trashed the airliner wouldent have been shot down ect ect cause and effect that’s not right or left that’s what happened that imo is beeing sielf aware 

And without the Nuclear deal Iran might not have had the money to kill our citizens, attack our embassy, bomb our bases and shoot down the airliner. 
 

A lot of people never supported the agreement because it gave Iran a clear path to nuclear weapons.

[Tug]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

And without the Nuclear deal Iran might not have had the money to kill our citizens, attack our embassy, bomb our bases and shoot down the airliner. 
 

A lot of people never supported the agreement because it gave Iran a clear path to nuclear weapons.

I’m going to call bs on the money if ands or butts bs but this I will ask you before trump welched on the treaty Iran was in compliance they were cooperating in the fight against isis we were taking baby steps towards peace and normalcy.Now I’ve seen 200,000 + <deleted> off Iranians united against us our embassy trashed and beeing run out of the Middle East I ask mysielf are we safer because of trumps actions or not ,cause(trump welching)effect embassy trashed airliner shot down a less safe world pure and simple

[Mick501]

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

Who said he plotted to blow up the embassy. The deep state trump has cried about for the last 3 years? Now he trusts them?

Not sure how conflating these issues helps.  In any case, the Intel on the rocket strikes was impressive.  Pretty good indicator that there are excellent and reliable source/s of Intel in this actual case.

[candide]

52 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

Not sure how conflating these issues helps.  In any case, the Intel on the rocket strikes was impressive.  Pretty good indicator that there are excellent and reliable source/s of Intel in this actual case.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pompeo-spars-with-reporters-over-imminent-soleimani-threat-097175

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.  

 

[sirineou]

We have being at war for at least the past 16 years none of which was authorised by congress as intended in the constitution. In fact the last time Congress authorised a war was in 1942, I am sure you all would agree that since them  we were involved in a lot of conflicts. In the meantime the US has  amassed a 22,7 trillion dollar debt, we can'  afford basic services,and our infrastructure is in shambles. 

To get a feel what 22.7 trillion dollars is, if you spend a dollar every second of the day and night none stop, it will take 736,000 years to spend it all. 

I know that when I go in debt, at least I have a big TV , a fancy boat, a big house or a shiny car,  What did the country get?

other than the 1% getting richer and richer, and the rest of the country being one paycheck away from disaster.   

Not all of this debt was because of wars but a big part of it is. If a gun was spewing out dollars instead of bullets people would be outraged, Well how much does a bullet cost? imagine a machine gun firing $1 bullets.

Then think about tanks and drones , airplanes etc. and that's only the economic cost. never mind all the human suffering.

 Don't you all think it is time we stop rooting  for our progressive or conservative team as if it was a football game and start rooting for the country?  There was a reason the founding fathers gave the power to declare war to congress. 

 

 

[Tug]

Sirineau well said sir this killing each other is not working out so well let’s stop inciting each other and start working together 

[rabas]

10 hours ago, Sujo said:

Who said he plotted to blow up the embassy. The deep state trump has cried about for the last 3 years? Now he trusts them?

So finally, to get Trump, you accept the deep state.

6 hours ago, Tug said:

I’m going to call bs on the money if ands or butts bs but this I will ask you before trump welched on the treaty Iran was in compliance they were cooperating in the fight against isis we were taking baby steps towards peace and normalcy.Now I’ve seen 200,000 + <deleted> off Iranians united against us our embassy trashed and beeing run out of the Middle East I ask mysielf are we safer because of trumps actions or not ,cause(trump welching)effect embassy trashed airliner shot down a less safe world pure and simple

The agreement was working and Iran was compliant in the same way people are safe if drivers are compliant with 300 mph speed limits posted on the highway.

 

The agreement did little to deter Iran's near future capability to become a powerful nuclear state. They  could keep their uranium enrichment industry intact, improve it, and as I posted several times, in October 2018 they completed factory to mass produce large numbers of new more powerful centrifuges. This would reduce their breakout time to a few months and they could shortly be producing a bomb every few weeks.

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, rabas said:

So finally, to get Trump, you accept the deep state.

The agreement was working and Iran was compliant in the same way people are safe if drivers are compliant with 300 mph speed limits posted on the highway.

 

The agreement did little to deter Iran's near future capability to become a powerful nuclear state. They  could keep their uranium enrichment industry intact, improve it, and as I posted several times, in October 2018 they completed factory to mass produce large numbers of new more powerful centrifuges. This would reduce their breakout time to a few months and they could shortly be producing a bomb every few weeks.

They were fully compliant. And now there is nothing to deter them and they are increasing enrichment.

 

So are we safer with iran before or after trump.

 

I think you need a comprehension lesson as to my post about deep state.

[Srikcir]

18 hours ago, mogandave said:

Trump in not waging war on Iran anymore than Obama was waging war on Libya when he attacked them without congressional approval. 
 

 

“[t]he President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” - Senator Obama 2007. (my italics)

Yes, Trump violated the Constitution and War Powers Act the same as Obama.

That doesn't excuse Trump's actions that were clearly, according to White House briefing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, not a response to any actual or imminent threat to the US. Even Pompeo in a press meeting said the US didn't know where or when such an attack might occur. Only that a high-value target of opportunity was identified (for political re-election benefit?). That does not equate to imminent threat.

Note that Trump has been POTUS for three years and there doesn't appear that capture (yes that could have been an alternative considering the trove of intelligence that would result and was the primary objective for Obama's raid against bin Laden) or kill Soleimani was even a priority. White House testimony before the Senate didn't mention any imminent threats against US embassies or bases.

Also note that subsequent to both Democrat and Republican Senators complaints about lack of White House evidence for imminent attack, Trump claimed first an imminent attack against the US Baghdad embassy, then later against four US embassies. He challenges his own credibility!

 

[jany123]

19 hours ago, mogandave said:

I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I don’t see that it makes a difference if it is. All I said was Trump was not declaring war anymore than Obama was. 

Don’t know and don’t care... very progressive of y’all. Perhaps knowing, or attempting too know, may help you to understand the difference

 

19 hours ago, mogandave said:

I don’t recall any big condemnation of the hundreds of drone strikes Obama ordered. 
 

Which is indicative of the fact that differences exist, even if you don’t know or care.... it’s sad when you appear to admit that living as an ostrich, head buried in sand to avoid truth, is your preferred method of existence.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

Don’t know and don’t care... very progressive of y’all. Perhaps knowing, or attempting too know, may help you to understand the difference

 

Which is indicative of the fact that differences exist, even if you don’t know or care.... it’s sad when you appear to admit that living as an ostrich, head buried in sand to avoid truth, is your preferred method of existence.

Please don’t lie. I never said I didn’t care, I said I didn’t see that it made a difference if it was true. 
 

You admitted not knowing if it was true, and you (apparently) can’t explain why it would make a difference.