US lawmakers call for Congress to review Trump's Iran actions

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - Some Democratic and Republican lawmakers on Sunday called on Congress to rein in President Donald Trump's use of military force in Iran and prevent U.S. involvement in a deepening Middle East conflict.
With Republican leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives strongly backing the U.S. attacks on key Iranian nuclear sites, it seemed unlikely any resolution that asserts the power of Congress to declare war and restricts Trump's actions could pass both chambers.
U.S. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said he expects to force the Senate to vote this week on his measure requiring Trump to terminate hostilities against Iran unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war from Congress. Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California said they want a vote on similar legislation they introduced in the House.
"This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interest for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress," Kaine told CBS' "Face the Nation" program.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the criticism from lawmakers.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune were both notified of the U.S. military action ahead of time, according to sources familiar with the matter. Members of Congress are expected to be briefed on Tuesday.
Thune's office declined to comment on Kaine's measure.
The attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday divided Trump's populist MAGA movement, with some leaders rallying behind the president and others calling for an end to hostilities after so-called U.S. "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. soil.
"I represent part of the coalition that elected President Trump. We were tired of endless wars," Massie told CBS. "We were promised that we would put our veterans, our immigration policies and our infrastructure first."
Massie and Kaine each said there was no urgency requiring Trump to act unilaterally.
"There was no imminent threat to the United States," Massie said. "We haven't been briefed."
Intelligence reports and analysts have reached different conclusions on how close Iran was to building a nuclear bomb. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Friday that the U.S. had intelligence that should Iran decide to do so, it could build a nuclear weapon in weeks or months. U.S. officials say they do not believe Iran had decided to make a bomb.
Iran claims its nuclear ambitions are peaceful and focused on energy production and medical research. But its program, which began in the late 1950s with U.S. support, has fallen under suspicion in recent years, with Tehran ramping up enrichment to 60%, just below the weapons-grade of 90%, and restricting the access of international inspectors to its sites.
Trump vowed on Sunday to support Massie's primary challenger in the 2026 midterm elections, saying the Kentucky congressman's criticism of the Iran attack and opposition to Trump's legislative efforts proved he was not aligned with the party's new base.
"MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one," Trump posted to Truth Social.
Another Trump loyalist, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, also criticized Trump's decision on Sunday, but insisted she was not being disloyal.
"I can also support President Trump and his great administration on many of the great things they are doing while disagreeing on bombing Iran and getting involved in a hot war that Israel started," the Georgia Republican wrote on X.
Other Trump allies pushed back on claims that his actions against Iran violated the U.S. Constitution and a federal law that restricts unilateral action by a president to conditions involving an attack on the United States.
"He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution. They are wrong," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump ally who has long been a leading voice on U.S. foreign policy matters in Congress.
"If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding," the South Carolina Republican told NBC's "Meet the Press" program.
The attacks on Iran generally drew accolades from Republican lawmakers who declared that the operation set back Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon.
"The President made the right call, and did what he needed to do," Johnson said in a post on X late Saturday. "The Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act."
The U.S. Constitution divides war powers in the federal government by making the president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces but leaving sole authority to declare war to Congress. The balance has shifted, with Congress relinquishing the use of military power to presidents of both parties in recent years.
But Democrats said it was too early to tell whether the mission had succeeded, warning that Iran could have moved its nuclear material to other sites far from U.S. targets.
"The tragedy in this country is that we keep entering these overseas wars. We triumphantly declare the mission is accomplished the day after, and then we're left with Americans bearing the consequences for decades," Khanna told CBS.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Reuters

34 minutes ago

• Reuters

Oil hits five-month high after US hits key Iranian nuclear sites

SINGAPORE, June 23 (Reuters) - Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January as Washington's weekend move to join Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities stoked supply worries. Brent crude futures rose $1.88 or 2.44% at $78.89 a barrel as of 1122 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude advanced $1.87 or 2.53% at $75.71. Both contracts jumped by more than 3% earlier in the session to $81.40 and $78.40, respectively, five-month highs, before giving up some gains. The rise in prices came after U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes over the weekend, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Market participants expect further price gains amid mounting fears that an Iranian retaliation may include a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude supply flows. Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament approved a measure to close the strait. Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through on the move. "The risks of damage to oil infrastructure ... have multiplied," said Sparta Commodities senior analyst June Goh. Although there are alternative pipeline routes out of the region, there will still be crude volumes that cannot be fully exported out if the Strait of Hormuz becomes inaccessible. Shippers will increasingly stay out of the region, she added. Brent has risen 13% since the conflict began on June 13, while WTI has gained around 10%. The current geopolitical risk premium is unlikely to last without tangible supply disruptions, analysts said. Meanwhile, the unwinding of some of the long positions accumulated following a recent price rally could cap an upside to oil prices, Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, wrote in a market commentary on Sunday.

BBC News

34 minutes ago

• BBC News

The Interview Martina Navratilova: 'Women are still judged by a different metric than men'

'Women are still judged by a different metric than men' Amol Rajan speaks to Martina Navratilova, one of the greatest-ever tennis players, about her life and career. The story of her rise to the top of the game is as remarkable as the number of tournaments she managed to win. Born behind the Iron Curtain in Czechoslovakia in 1956, she was 11-years-old when she watched Soviet tanks roll in to the country as Moscow sought to reassert control and quash political reform. Navratilova, who played in her first tennis tournament when she was eight, rose to both national and international prominence in the years that followed. But in 1975, following the Czech government's efforts to control her tennis career, she defected. Aged 18, Navratilova sought asylum in the United States, where she later became an American citizen. During the late 1970s and 1980s she dominated the international tennis circuit, and by the time she retired, she'd won 59 major singles and doubles titles. But throughout her life, Navratilova has generated headlines on the front pages of newspapers, as well as the back. She came out as being gay in 1981, a rare thing for high-profile athletes to do at the time, and quickly became a prominent figure in the gay rights movement. More recently, however, she's found herself at odds with some groups due to her views on transgender athletes. She's also battled cancer on two separate occasions. Thank you to the Amol Rajan Interviews team for their help in making this programme. The Interview brings you conversations with people shaping our world, from all over the world. The best interviews from the BBC. You can listen on the BBC World Service, Mondays and Wednesdays at 0700 GMT. Or you can listen to The Interview as a podcast, out twice a week on BBC Sounds, Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Presenter: Amol Rajan Producers: Ben Cooper, Joel Mapp Sound: Dave O'Neill Editor: Nick Holland Get in touch with us on email TheInterview@ and use the hashtag #TheInterviewBBC on social media. (Image: Martina Navratilova. Credit: Roy Rochlin/Getty)

Times

41 minutes ago

• Times

Can Iran still build nuclear weapons after the US bombing?

The 14 GBU-57 'bunker-busters' dropped by the Pentagon's B2 stealth bombers on Iran's nuclear facilities will have done a lot of damage, with about 200 tons of heavy munitions. They may not have 'fully obliterated' all three sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow as President Trump claimed, but they probably did cause 'severe damage' in the more modest assessment of the Pentagon. That does not mean, however, that Iran's nuclear programme is dead and buried. Apart from anything else, somewhere in Iran is probably a deadly cargo of canisters in secure storage. They contain just over 400kg of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity — enough, with some extra enrichment, for about nine nuclear warheads. That level of enrichment means the uranium is 60 per cent made up of the U235 isotope needed to make the kind of bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. In the raw, uranium consists of 1 per cent U235 and 99 per cent U238 isotope. Weapons-grade uranium is 90 per cent U235. To get from one to the other, a machine — of the sort the Iranians have at Isfahan — converts the uranium to uranium hexafluoride gas. That gas is then taken to one of the two known Iranian enrichment facilities, at Natanz or Fordow. There it is passed through racks of centrifuges which spin at hundreds of times a second, threshing the heavier U238 to the outside and leaving behind the 'enriched' gas with its greater concentration of U235. • Who are Iran's allies — and will any help after the US strikes? The Israelis and Americans will be hoping that the bunker-busters — 12 dropped on Fordow, whose centrifuge chambers are buried 90 metres below ground, and two on the shallower Natanz — will have destroyed those centrifuges. They are sensitive and even the lesser strikes on Natanz by the Israelis at the start of their own bombing campaign may have put them out of use. Questions remain, however. Did the US mission succeed? Satellite imagery of the Fordow site in the aftermath of the bombing seems to show some holes in the mountain above it, which may be consistent with damage. One possibility is that the bombs did not manage to break into the chamber but collapsed it enough to have the required effect. At Isfahan, the unit converting uranium to uranium hexafluoride, and the separate plant that converts the enriched gas back to metal to be turned into a warhead, are both believed to have been easier targets. • 'The key thing is that the enrichment facilities and metal conversion facilities are now non-operational and potentially destroyed,' said Ian Stewart, a former Ministry of Defence specialist and now director of the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute in the United States. 'It will take weeks or months to reconstitute those capabilities.' Are there hidden centrifuges? Secondly, there is the question of whether the Iranians have more centrifuges hidden away elsewhere, allowing them to restart the programme fairly quickly. 'We have to assume the Iranians are competent and put aside a spare set of equipment,' Stewart said. 'They may also have set up small numbers of machines in unknown locations. So for planning purposes you have to assume it will take weeks or months for Iran to reconstitute the enrichment capability, not years.' Iran has, of course, lost key members of its nuclear 'command and control'. Back in November 2020, Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, assassinated Brigadier-General Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Revolutionary Guards officer seen as the mastermind of the 'dual use' programme: one built overtly for civilian purposes, but compatible with a decision to build a bomb. He was ambushed and shot near his weekend villa outside Tehran by a robot-controlled machinegun on a pick-up truck. Since the Israeli bombing began on June 13, at least ten prominent nuclear scientists, including Fereydoon Abbasi, a former head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation (AEOI), and many of the leaders of the Guards have also been killed. However, the programme employs thousands of people, many of whom are experts in their fields. 'The Iranian nuclear programme is decades old and draws on extensive Iranian indigenous expertise,' Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said. 'The physical elimination of the programme's infrastructure — and even the assassination of Iranian scientists — will not be sufficient to destroy the latent knowledge that exists in the country.' Key to the future is the whereabouts of that 400kg of 60 per cent enriched uranium, which Stewart called 'the most valuable asset in Iran right now'. Iran could fashion it into a large but crude nuclear device that could be transported by lorry, or, with a few centrifuges it had saved, convert some of it into a smaller nuclear weapon. Will Iran risk all-out war? Iran may or may not choose to escalate militarily, to try to show that it still has the military teeth and, indeed, necessary level of defiance to risk an all-out confrontation with the United States. But in the medium term it has a huge question to answer that is both technical and political. Does it tell the International Atomic Energy Agency where those cylinders of enriched uranium are, as it is required to do under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) to which — unlike Israel — it is a signatory? If it does, it will no doubt fear that the information will make its way to Israel or the US. If it does not, and particularly if it withdraws from the NPT, that could prompt the European states — Britain, France and Germany — who are still signatories to the semi-defunct 2015 nuclear deal to trigger a 'snapback' mechanism. That would entail reintroducing more sanctions and renewing the UN ban on the nuclear programme. The 2015 deal expires in October. President Trump still says he wants a new one — on his terms. An Iran that wanted peace at all costs would probably comply. But the Iran that exists at present — the Islamic Republic — has so far refused to fold. It may, eventually, agree to more talks. But the United States and Israel will be wary that this is a play for time, until the nuclear deal expires, or just until Trump tires of the whole issue.