Skip to main content

Did Trump have the authority to strike Iran?

The US entered Israel’s war with Iran late on Saturday when president Donald Trump authorised strikes against Iran targeting three nuclear facilities, which he called a “spectacular military success”.

The US president had stepped up his rhetoric against Tehran since Israel first struck Iran on June 13, repeating his insistence that it could never have a nuclear weapon. Tehran has consistently denied the claim, saying its uranium enrichment programme is for civilian purposes.

Israel had launched wide-scale air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, military sites and private residences, killing top commanders, scientists and hundreds others. Both countries have traded wave after wave of devastating strikes since then.

Critics, analysts and key US lawmakers have debated the legality of Trump’s decision to strike Iran without prior approval from Congress.

US President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation alongside US Vice President JD Vance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, DC on June 21. — Reuters
US President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation alongside US Vice President JD Vance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, DC on June 21. — Reuters

What authority does the president have to launch such a strike?

According to Article II of the US Constitution, the president has the authority to order the use of military force to defend the US and US persons against actual or anticipated attacks, as well as advance other important national interests.

Previous US presidents — both Democratic and Republican — have deployed US forces and ordered the use of military force without congressional authorisation on numerous occasions, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

In addition to the powers granted to the president in Article II, Article I of the US Constitution gives Congress the authority to “declare War.”

However, this authority has never been interpreted — either by Congress or the executive branch — to require congressional authorisation for every military action that the president could initiate.

Should Trump have obtained congressional authorisation to strike Iran?

The War Power Resolution of 1973 curbed the president’s war-making powers.

While the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and can order attacks, his decisions must be within the guidelines of what is authorised by Congress, according to Al Jazeera.

However, the president can order the military in the case of a “sudden attack” or to respond to emergencies.

With regard to whether or not congressional authorisation is required as a matter of law, both Republican and Democratic presidents have generally preferred, for political and legal reasons, to seek congressional authorisation— or say that they are acting under previous authorizations — for any substantial or prolonged use of military force, CFR states.

President George H. W. Bush sought and received congressional authorisation for the Gulf War in 1991, and President George W Bush sought and received authorisations in 2001 and 2002 to use force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and against former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

How did US lawmakers react to the strikes?

Key progressive Senator Bernie Sanders was speaking at a rally in Oklahoma when Trump announced the attack.

“It is so grossly unconstitutional,” he said. “All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress; the president does not have that right.”

US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Trump has “impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,” adding that his decision was “absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.”

She also emphasised that bombing Iran was a “grave violation” of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers.

US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib echoed the same sentiment, saying: “The American people do not want another forever war.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, applauded the operation but cautioned that the US now faced “very serious choices ahead”, according to Reuters.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, said: “This war is Israel’s war, not our war, but Israel is one of our strongest allies and is disarming Iran for the good of the world.”

Risch added: “This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.”

US House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said: “President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorisation for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

“Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action,” Jeffries said.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said the US public “is overwhelmingly opposed to the US waging war on Iran” and said Trump displayed “horrible judgment.”

When was the last time the US formally declared war?

In 1942, during World War II.

Since then, the US has gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq, while carrying out strikes and interventions in numerous countries — Serbia, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, to name a few, according to Al Jazeera.


Header image: US President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation alongside US Vice President JD Vance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, DC on June 21. — Reuters



from The Dawn News - Home https://ift.tt/JPgOj5o

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ministers rubbish notion that proposed retirement age extension to favour ‘one particular institution’

Information Minister Attaullah Tarar on Tuesday rubbished the notion that a proposed extension in the retirement age was to favour “one particular institution”, adding that the move would be implemented across the board if approved. The rebuttal comes in the wake of media reports claiming that the government was mulling changes to the Constitution to fix the tenure of the chief justice . Currently, judges of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, retire after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 65 years, as stipulated in Article 179 of the Constitution. While giving his opinion recently on the reports of the constitutional amendment, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar had said he “will not vehemently turn down the proposals related to the tenure of the chief justice”. Addressing the issue during a press conference in Islamabad today along since Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb and the law minister, Attaullah said the extension in the retirement age was “a proposal to a...

The Republican primary race for president in 2024

The Republican primary race for president in 2024 is already shaping up to be a competitive one. There are a number of high-profile candidates who have already announced their intention to run, and more are expected to join the field in the coming months. The frontrunner for the nomination is former President Donald Trump. Trump has been teasing a 2024 run for months, and he has a large and loyal following among Republican voters. However, he is also a polarizing figure, and his candidacy could alienate some moderate Republicans. Another potential contender for the nomination is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. DeSantis has been praised by many conservatives for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and his opposition to vaccine mandates. He is also seen as a rising star in the Republican Party. Other potential candidates include former Vice President Mike Pence, former Ambassador Nikki Haley, and Senator Tim Scott. Pence is a more traditional Republican who could appeal to moderate vote...

In pictures: Grief in Gaza and the loss of a child

In the photo, the woman cradles a child in her arms, balanced on her knee. It is an image that resonates, as ancient as human history. But in a grim inversion of the familiar, we see that the child she holds close is a corpse, wrapped in a shroud. It is a quiet moment of intense grief. The woman wears a headscarf and her head is bowed. We cannot see who she is nor can we learn anything about the child — not even if it is a boy or girl. Palestinian woman Inas Abu Maamar, 36, embraces the body of her 5-year-old niece Saly, who was killed in an Israeli strike, at Nasser hospital in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, October 17, 2023. The child is one of many who have lost their lives on both sides in the Israel-Hamas war. Most have names we will never know, whose deaths will spark a lifetime of grief for family members we will never meet. In the 21st century, an average of almost 20 children a day have been killed or maimed in wars around the world, according to Unicef. Reuter...