Trump justifies Iran attack as Congress raises doubt

According to President Trump, the United States attacked Iran because the Iranian regime posed “imminent threats” to the United States and its allies, including using terrorist proxies and continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“His threatening activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases abroad, and our allies around the world,” he said. recorded statement Saturday.

Trump’s motives are questionable, according to leading Democrats in Congress, especially given his claims last year that the US had “completely destroyed” Iran’s nuclear capabilities in separate bombings.

“Everything I heard from the administration before and after these attacks on Iran confirms that this is an election war with no strategic end,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and part of a small group of congressional leaders (the Gang of Eight) who received information about the operation from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

That divide will remain an issue politically heading into this year’s midterm elections and could be a liability for Republicans — especially given that some in the “America First” wing of the MAGA base have voiced their own objections, citing Trump’s 2024 campaign promise to save the United States from foreign wars rather than start new wars.

The debate echoed a similar, if less urgent, argument over President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq following the September 11, 2001 attacks, again based on claims that “weapons of mass destruction” posed an immediate threat. These claims were later refuted by numerous findings that no such arsenal existed in Iraq, fueling accusations from both political parties for years.

The latest split has also intensified unease over Congress’s delegation of wartime powers to the White House, which for years has assumed sweeping authority to attack foreign enemies without direct input from Congress to combat terrorism or prevent direct harm to the country or its troops.

Even before the weekend bombings, Democrats, including California Sen. Adam Schiff, were pressing Congress to pass a resolution banning the Trump administration from attacking Iran without express authorization from Congress.

“President Trump should come to Congress before using military force unless absolutely necessary to protect the United States from an imminent attack,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the armed services and foreign relations committees, said Thursday.

In justifying the daytime attacks that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei just two days later, Trump accused the Iranian government of “waging an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder” for nearly half a century (including attacks on U.S. military assets and commercial shipping vessels abroad) and of “arming, training and financing terrorist militias” in several countries, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Trump said he warned Tehran “never to continue” its pursuit of nuclear weapons after the United States bombed Iran last summer. “Instead, they have sought 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 soon reach the American homeland,” he said.

Other Republican leaders largely supported the president.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, “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 come after you and kill you.”

“Every president has talked about the threat posed by the Iranian regime. The person who has the courage to take bold and decisive action is President Trump,” Avty said. Gen. Pam Bondi.

While Iran’s coordination and sponsorship of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas is well known, Trump’s claims that it continues to develop nuclear weapons systems are less established, and the administration has offered little evidence to support them.

Democrats took advantage of this lack of fresh intelligence in their response to the attacks, contrasting Trump’s latest claims about imminent threats with his claim that the United States had all but eliminated Iran’s nuclear ambitions after separate bombings in the summer.

“Let’s be clear: The Iranian regime is terrible. But I have seen no imminent threat to the United States that would justify endangering American troops,” 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? Iran’s nuclear program? Its missiles? Regime change?”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (DY) said in a statement that the Trump administration “has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and urgency of the threat” and should have done so.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (DY) said the Trump administration needs and does not have congressional authority to carry out such attacks outside of “emergency circumstances.”

“The Trump administration must immediately explain itself to the American people and Congress, provide a solid justification for this act of war, clearly define its national security objective, and articulate a plan to prevent another costly, protracted military quagmire in the Middle East,” he said.

Demands for a clearer justification and new restrictions on Trump grew louder after the US military announced Sunday that three US service personnel were killed and five others seriously injured in the attacks.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said Sunday that he is optimistic that Democrats will unite in trying to pass the war powers resolution and also that some Republicans will join them, given that the strikes are unpopular with some of the MAGA base.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who partnered with Khanna to get the Epstein files released, said he would work with Khanna again to get a congressional vote on war with Iran, saying it was “not ‘America First.'”

Whether 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 harm the United States and its allies, said Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Affairs. This became clear to both the United States and Israel following the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, which were praised by Iran.

“If you’re Israel or the United States, it’s very close,” he said.

Radd said what happens next will largely determine whether the remaining Iranian leaders stick to Khamenei’s hard-line policies or decide to renegotiate with the United States. He hopes they can do the latter because “this is a fundamentalist regime, not a suicidal regime,” and it is now clear that the United States and Israel have the capacity to eliminate Iran’s leaders, that Iran has little ability to defend itself, and that China and Russia are not coming to the rescue.

How the attacks are perceived going forward may also depend on what leaders decide to do next, said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology at the UCLA International Institute who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics.

If the conflict remains relatively under control, it could become a political win for Trump, eliminating questions about motive. But if the situation gets out of control, he said, such questions are likely to increase, as happened when things started to deteriorate in Iraq.

Harris said Israel and the United States are now betting that the conflict will remain manageable, and that may turn out to be true, but said “the problem with war is you never know what might actually happen.”

On Sunday, Iran launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and the Gulf region. Trump said the campaign against Iran continues “unabated” but said he might be willing to negotiate with the country’s new leaders. It was unclear when Congress would implement the war powers measure.