Democrats assail 'erratic' Trump over Iran strikes

Members of the Senate and House of Representatives argued that US intelligence had not shown an imminent threat from the Middle Eastern country that justified Trump's unilateral action.
"President Trump's actions in bombing Iran puts the US on the brink of a wider war in the Middle East, all without constitutionally required Congressional approval," Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said in a statement.
Democrats were divided between those demanding a vote on a war powers resolution to constrain Trump's authority to launch further action and a smaller group, who maintained that the strikes were grounds for the Republican leader's impeachment.
They included Illinois moderate Sean Casten and New York leftist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who accused the president of having "impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations."
Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leaders in the Senate and House respectively, said Trump had "dramatically increased" America's risk of becoming embroiled in a new Middle Eastern conflagration.
"No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy," Schumer said.
The Democrats have foreign policy hawks in their ranks and many were quick to point to the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose --- while still upbraiding Trump for acting without consulting lawmakers.
"The Constitution makes clear that the power to authorize war lies with Congress... The American people deserve more than vague rhetoric and unilateral decisions that could set off a wider war," said Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee.
The loudest Democratic voice in support of the strikes was staunchly pro-Israel Senator John Fetterman, who singled out Trump for praise -- something even party colleagues who support the strikes have avoided.
"As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by (Trump)," the Pennsylvania centrist posted on X. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities."
Republicans have been lining up since the strikes to praise Trump and endorse his decision to hit three Iranian nuclear facilities -- with little dissent among the ranks.
But Kentucky conservative Thomas Massie accused Trump of escalating the conflict between Israel and Iran.
"When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war," said Massie, who introduced a bipartisan resolution earlier this month to require any military action to be approved by lawmakers.
"I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics being undertaken by neocons in DC (and their social media bots) to say we aren't at war... so they can make war."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

LeMonde

2 hours ago

• LeMonde

Trump mentions regime change in Iran, after his administration said that wasn't the goal

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a news conference that America "does not seek war" with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. "This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Hegseth said. But Trump's post later on Sunday on his Truth Social page marked something of a reversal from Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" Trump posted on social media. "MIGA!!!" However, the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings that could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack US bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear program that might seem like more of a necessity after the US strike. All of that raises the question of whether the strikes will open up a far more brutal phase of fighting or revive negotiations out of an abundance of caution. Inside the US, the attack quickly spilled over into domestic politics with Trump choosing to spend part of his Sunday going after his critics. 'Spectacular military success' The US president, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambaste Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. "We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)" Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. At their joint Pentagon briefing, Hegseth and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. Caine indicated that the goal of the operation – destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan – had been achieved. "Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Caine said. Vance said in a television interview that while he would not discuss "sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground," he felt "very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon." Pressed further, he told NBC's Meet the Press that "I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon." The vice president said the US had "negotiated aggressively" with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting "in good faith." Partner service Learn French with Gymglish Thanks to a daily lesson, an original story and a personalized correction, in 15 minutes per day. "I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbors, not to be a threat to the United States, and if they're willing to do that, the United States is all ears," Vance said. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "there are no planned military operations right now against Iran, unless, unless they mess around and they attack" US interests.

France 24

5 hours ago

• France 24

Democrats assail 'erratic' Trump over Iran strikes

Members of the Senate and House of Representatives argued that US intelligence had not shown an imminent threat from the Middle Eastern country that justified Trump's unilateral action. "President Trump's actions in bombing Iran puts the US on the brink of a wider war in the Middle East, all without constitutionally required Congressional approval," Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said in a statement. Democrats were divided between those demanding a vote on a war powers resolution to constrain Trump's authority to launch further action and a smaller group, who maintained that the strikes were grounds for the Republican leader's impeachment. They included Illinois moderate Sean Casten and New York leftist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who accused the president of having "impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leaders in the Senate and House respectively, said Trump had "dramatically increased" America's risk of becoming embroiled in a new Middle Eastern conflagration. "No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy," Schumer said. The Democrats have foreign policy hawks in their ranks and many were quick to point to the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose --- while still upbraiding Trump for acting without consulting lawmakers. "The Constitution makes clear that the power to authorize war lies with Congress... The American people deserve more than vague rhetoric and unilateral decisions that could set off a wider war," said Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee. The loudest Democratic voice in support of the strikes was staunchly pro-Israel Senator John Fetterman, who singled out Trump for praise -- something even party colleagues who support the strikes have avoided. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by (Trump)," the Pennsylvania centrist posted on X. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities." Republicans have been lining up since the strikes to praise Trump and endorse his decision to hit three Iranian nuclear facilities -- with little dissent among the ranks. But Kentucky conservative Thomas Massie accused Trump of escalating the conflict between Israel and Iran. "When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war," said Massie, who introduced a bipartisan resolution earlier this month to require any military action to be approved by lawmakers. "I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics being undertaken by neocons in DC (and their social media bots) to say we aren't at war... so they can make war."

France 24

6 hours ago

• France 24

NATO strikes spending deal, but Spain exemption claim risks Trump ire

The claim by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez sets up a potential clash with Trump, who has pressured allies to commit to that headline figure when they meet for the two-day gathering starting on Tuesday in The Hague. Spain had been the last holdout on a compromise deal that sees allies promise to reach 3.5 percent on core military needs over the next decade, and spend 1.5 percent on a looser category of "defence-related" expenditures such as infrastructure and cybersecurity. Multiple diplomats at NATO said the agreement -- set to be unveiled at the summit -- had gone through with the approval of all 32 nations and that there was no exemption for Madrid. But within minutes Sanchez came out saying he had struck an accord with NATO that would see his country keep respecting its commitments "without having to raise our defence spending to five percent of gross domestic product". "We understand the difficulty of the geopolitical context, fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defence investment, if they so wish, but we are not going to do it," he said. NATO diplomats now fear that Spain's position could undermine its carefully choreographed show of unity with Trump in The Hague, which already risks being overshadowed by the US decision to strike Iran. "Not ok," one diplomat said, on condition of anonymity. Madrid's claims came after Sanchez on Thursday threw a last-minute grenade into preparations for the gathering in the Netherlands by taking a strong stand against the agreement. In a blistering letter to NATO chief Mark Rutte, Sanchez said that committing to a headline figure of five percent of GDP "would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive". That prompted a warning from Trump that "Spain has to pay what everybody else has to pay." "NATO is going to have to deal with Spain," he told reporters on Friday, calling the country "notorious" for spending less on defence than other alliance members. 'Flexibility' The outburst from Madrid's centre-left leader also sparked fury from other NATO members desperate to keep Trump -- who has threatened not to protect allies spending too little -- on their side. The pledge is seen as key both to satisfying Trump and helping NATO build up the forces it needs to deter Russia. After several days of wrangling involving Sanchez and Rutte, officials said Spain on Sunday signed off on the pledge. Diplomats said that language around the spending pledge in the summit's final declaration had been slightly softened from "we commit", to "allies commit". They insisted the fundamentals of the deal remained intact and that it applied to Spain. But government sources in Madrid said the linguistic tweak meant only those countries that opted-in were covered by the promise and that Rutte was set to send a letter to Sanchez saying that Spain will have "flexibility". Sanchez is facing a difficult balancing act of aligning with NATO allies and cajoling his junior coalition partner, the far-left alliance Sumar, which is hostile to increasing military spending. Spain has been one of the lowest-spending NATO countries on defence in relative terms. The country is only set to hit the alliance's current target of two percent this year after a 10-billion-euro ($11.5 billion) injection.