Cheering support and instant condemnation: US lawmakers respond to attack on Iran
American politicians reacted to the news of the US bombing of nuclear targets in Iran with a mix of cheering support and instant condemnation, reflecting deep divisions in the country that cross party lines as Washington grapples with yet another military intervention overseas.
Donald Trump announced on Saturday night that the US had completed strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, directly joining Israel's effort this month to destroy the country's nuclear program.
Earlier this week, the US president had signaled that Iran would get two weeks before he would make a decision about joining Israel's military effort or steering clear – a timeline that evidently was shattered this weekend as the waiting posture was quickly reversed.
Related: Trump says US has attacked three nuclear sites in Iran
The US attack came after more than a week of missile, drone and airstrikes by Israel on Iran's air defences and offensive missile capabilities and its nuclear enrichment facilities. But it was widely held that only the US had the offensive firepower to reach a core part of Iran's nuclear operations that were buried deep underground – an attack that has now taken place.
The move sparked condemnation from the Democratic California congressman Ro Khanna, a progressive in the party who has been critical of any US military action against Iran. Khanna and the hard-right Republican congressman Thomas Massie were planning to introduce a measure that would force Trump to get congressional approval to enter Israel's conflict with Iran.
Khanna posted on X that Congress needed to vote on such action.
'Trump struck Iran without any authorization of Congress. We need to immediately return to DC and vote on @RepThomasMassie and my War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war,' he said.
Massie himself tweeted on X: 'This is not Constitutional.'
Massie and Khanna represent a rare moment of cross party cooperation in the deeply divided US political landscape, though some other Republicans also expressed doubt. The far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – a stalwart of Trump's Make America Great Again (Maga) politics – has been critical of any US attack on Iran and posted simply on X: 'Let us all join together and pray for peace.'
The US Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat of New York, demanded of the Senate majority leader and South Dakota Republican, John Thune, that he should immediately call a vote on the matter.
Schumer said the US Congress must enforce the War Powers Act 'and I'm urging leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately'. The law is also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and is intended as a check on the US president's power to commit the United States to armed conflict without the consent of the US Congress.
Meanwhile, at a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Saturday, on his 'fighting oligarchy' tour, the leftist Vermont senator Bernie Sanders read out Trump's statement announcing the attack, prompting boos and rapid, loud chanting of 'no more war' from the crowd. Sanders said: 'I agree.'
He then called the attack 'alarming' and added: 'It is so grossly unconstitutional'.
The New York Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went further and called for Trump's impeachment – something that has been tried twice before. 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,' she said on X.
Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the House, said Trump had 'misled' Americans. 'The risk of war has now dramatically increased, and I pray for the safety of our troops in the region who have been put in harm's way,' he said in a statement.
He added: 'Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.'
The US vice-president, JD Vance, reposted Trump's post on X announcing the US strikes, where the president had said: 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran … There is not another military in the world that could have done this … Now is the time for peace!' Vance did not add any comment when he reposted. Both he, particularly, and Trump campaigned in the presidential election against US involvement in foreign wars.
Other Democrats also came out strongly against the attack, echoing Khanna's stance. 'President Trump has no constitutional authority to take us to war with Iran without authorization from Congress, and Congress has not authorized it,' said the Virginia congressman Don Beyer.
The Illinois congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi told the Guardian: 'If Iran was not fully committed to building a nuclear bomb in an accelerated timeframe I'd be shocked if they are not now – have we just unleashed something that's worse than what was happening before?'
However, the strike on Iran also had support among some Democrats, notably the Pennsylvania Democratic senator John Fetterman, who has been a hawkish supporter of Israel and advocated for the US to join Israel's assault on Iran.
'This was the correct move by @POTUS. Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities,' Fetterman posted.
More predictably, hawks among Republican ranks reacted to the attack with congratulations to Trump for making the decision to intervene.
'This was the right call. The regime deserves it. Well done, President @realDonaldTrump. To my fellow citizens: We have the best Air Force in the world. It makes me so proud. Fly, Fight, Win,' said the South Carolina Republican senator Lindsey Graham, an Iran hawk who has long advocated for taking a hard line in support of Israel's attack on Iran, on X.
The former Republican congressman Matt Gaetz likened the attack to the US killing of the powerful Iranian general Qassem Suleimani in 2020 as he was being driven away from Baghdad international airport. 'President Trump basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike – one and done. No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!,' Gaetz said on X.
Thune earlier in the evening, before Schumer's comments, had said: 'The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing 'death to America' and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs' misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped. As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.'
The Oklahoma senator and Republican Trump loyalist Markwayne Mullin posted on X: 'America first, always.'
Reuters contributed reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
17 minutes ago
- CNBC
Treasury yields inch higher after U.S. bombs Iran
U.S. Treasury yields inched higher on Monday after the U.S. bombing of Iran and as investors awaited a batch of key economic data this week. At 5:25 a.m. ET, the 10-year yield was more than 1 basis point higher at 4.387%, and the 30-year yield moved over 1 basis point higher to 4.903%. The 2-year yield also added 1 basis point to reach 3.918%. One basis point is equal to 0.01%, and yields and prices move in opposite directions. Investors are on high alert after the U.S. entered the war between Israel and Iran on Saturday by attacking Iranian nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. "There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left," Trump said from the White House after the strikes. Investors, who were formerly expecting diplomacy, are now bracing for Iran's retaliation. That could include targeting U.S. personnel in nearby bases or closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would disrupt global oil flows. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on social media that the U.S. attacks would have "everlasting consequences," and that "every member of the United Nations must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior." Deutsche Bank analysts said in a note, "In terms of the economic impact, the US has turned into a net energy exporter in the last few years so any negative impact would be through deteriorating financial conditions or through higher for longer rates as the Fed have another reason to delay cuts." Investors will also await a series of economic data this week, including existing home sales data for May on Monday, gross domestic product growth rate on Thursday, and the personal consumption expenditures index on Friday.
Bloomberg
17 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Clean-Energy Project Cancellations Hit GOP Districts Hardest
Clean energy investments in the US are shrinking fast amid the rollback of tax incentives and policy uncertainties under President Donald Trump's administration, with Republican districts hardest hit. Businesses canceled or delayed more than $1.4 billion in new factories and clean energy projects last month, bringing the total since January to $15.5 billion, according to an analysis by E2, a non-partisan group that advocates for renewables and policies to protect the environment. The canceled projects across battery, electric vehicles and solar, were expected to create nearly 12,000 new jobs.
Associated Press
17 minutes ago
- Associated Press
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
