Trump weighs military action on Iran as lawmakers question war powers

President Donald Trump Considering to order the order of American strikes on Iran and will make a decision within two weeks, said Thursday of the White House officials, capping days of intense speculation in the regional level – and by leading to new fears of climbing, reprisals and long -term engagement in another foreign conflict.

Trump spent much of the week to think publicly about the prospect of involving the United States more directly in the Israeli-Iranian conflict, while the two countries continued to make fatal strikes. Over the week, Trump continued to break up with attempts by cabinet officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who tried to distribute the role the United States played by helping Israel.

Asset warned On Wednesday, on social networks, that the United States has “complete and total control of the sky on Iran” and demanded an “unconstitutional surrender” from Iran.

He also repeatedly refused to exclude the prospect of making a direct strike on Iran. “I can do it. I may not be doing it,” he told journalists on Wednesday. “I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,” he said.

Trump to make Iran’s decision “within two weeks,” luck “of negotiations, says Leavitt

This declaration, more than any other, illustrates the central question which crosses a large part of Washington this week, while Trump continues to snuggle up with advisers for meetings in the situation room, including at least one meeting where he would have approved the attack plans against Tehran, in the event of the end of their nuclear program, as asked for the administration. (The news of this meeting was reported for the first time by the Wall Street Journal.)

The White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt refused to develop the nature of the Iranian American talks on Thursday, telling journalists only that Trump was planning to make a decision on how to proceed within two weeks.

Meanwhile, the supreme Iranian chief of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected negotiations with the United States on Wednesday, warning that if it attacked Iran, the United States “without a doubt, this will face irreparable damage”.

Here is what we know about Trump’s options, if he chooses to order strikes on Iran – and the risks, legal and other, the United States could therefore.

Resolution of war powers

Trump weighs the United States to strike against Iran, including the possibility of targeting the country’s nuclear enrichment facilities in Fordow, a key nuclear installation south of Tehran.

But while Trump huddles with his White House advisers, legislators summoned on the other side of Pennsylvania avenue for their own closed meetings.

Trump’s remarks did not do much to appease the growing fears of climbing in the Middle East-both of some supporters of Maga, who have rallied around his promises to end “wars forever”, and the Democrats, who fear reprisals that an offensive would bring.

The representatives Thomas Massie, R-ky., And Ro Khanna, D-Calif., This week announced a new bipartite legislation which would force Trump to obtain approval from the congress before signing any significant commitment with Iran, as offensive strikes on its nuclear installations.

The bill has attracted the support of a strange coalition of Bipartisan legislators, including supporters of Trump who are opposed to American engagement in more foreign wars, and Democrats, notably the representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Dn.Y.

These legislators argue that Trump, by acting unilaterally, would violate standard American laws – namely the limitations listed in the resolution of war powers, or the law adopted by the congress in 1973 aimed at codifying cases where a president can authorize the use of force in foreign conflicts without a declaration of formal war.

“ Instincts for restraint ”: the Senate divided on who can declare war

“The current war between Israel and Iran is not our war,” said Massie by announcing the bill. “Even if that was the case, the congress must decide such questions according to our constitution.”

But during the decades which followed an adoption of the law, the presidents have expanded their powers here in the absence of the authorization of the congress, in particular under the Democratic and Republican presidents. This was, to a certain extent, reflected by the Bureau of Legal Councils of the Ministry of Justice, which adopted a broader vision of the powers of article II granted to presidents during the initiation of the use of force – in particular when it is in “the national interest” to do so.

This wider powers were used by Republican presidents, and during the Obama and Biden administrations, officials at Fox News Digital said.

Michael Rubin, a principal researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, underlined him in an interview with Fox News.

“There are many precedents of presidents ignoring the technical details” of the regulation of the war of powers, he said Thursday in an interview.

In the end, Rubin declared, the president “has the capacity to act without him for a period of defined time. And so [the law] Really only applies if we are going to enter a major operation rather than a unique bombardment. “”

“The fact is that the worst option for American security is to allow Iran to reconstruct its program because of what it has buried in Fordow,” said Rubin, a former Pentagon official whose work at AEI is largely focused on questions in the Middle East.

Climbing fears

In the meantime, however, the threats of Trump aroused concerns of certain criticisms, which consider its remarks that are both dangerous and potentially plagued by possible reprisals from Tehran.

Critics have suggested that they could also endanger American officials stationed abroad, including those of Iran’s strike beach.

“It should be the interest of the White House to use an American lever effect to stop fighting,” said Brian Finucan, principal advisor to the international crisis group in Fox News in an interview.

“The United States is helping Israel in anti-missile defense right now,” he said. Defense activity “must stop the fight,” he said.

International law

It is also feared that the United States can act in violation of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations which “prohibits threat or the use of force, except in certain limited circumstances, such as self-defense”, according to a white paper Posted in 2019 by Just Security.

In this situation, criticisms say that the United States has no pretext for authorizing a strike against Iran.

“I do not think there is a plausible self -defense argument for American military action against Iran,” said Brian Finucane, principal advisor to the International Crisis Group, in Fox News in an interview.

“Thus, any American military action against Iran would violate the charter of the United Nations and thus violate the duty of the President of the Constitution to take care that the laws are faithfully executed,” he said.

Others on the hill and beyond have taken a more favorable posture while Trump weighs his next steps.

Speaking in an interview Thursday morning on “Fox & Friends”, Senator John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Hunted Trump’s actions so far in the region, saying that Trump “does the right thing to ensure the safety of America”.

“It has been very consistent for 10 years, saying that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” said Barrasso. “He said it strongly. He has read it several times because he knows that Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat to the people of the United States. We stand with the people [of] Israel.”

Senator Lindsey Graham was among Trump’s most vocal supporters and said in interviews earlier this week that he thought Trump wanted to “finish work” by destroying Fordow.

“I do not think that Israel can finish Fordow without our help, and it is in our interest to ensure that this program is destroyed, as much as it is Israel”, he said in an interview.

“And so if there is something you need to do to help Israel,” he said.

Rubin, the AEI scholarship holder, also sought to differentiate Trump’s actions from other presidents who have engaged in long foreign conflicts.

“The problem with Iran is that we are not raising the United States at war,” said Rubin. “We take this opportunity to put an end to a crisis once and for all. It seems to have an agreement on a blow.”

Following steps

However, we do not know what will be the end of Trump, if he chooses to hit Iran.

This is partly by Conception, said Finucan, the adviser of the International Crisis Group, who previously spent a decade at the Bureau of the Legal Councilor of the State Department.

“The Constitution, very deliberately, gives the power to declare war on the congress,” he said.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

“And that is to wage war in war,” he said. “This requires collective decision -making and previous public debate; deliberation [of] The cost and advantages of the most substantial decision that the United States government can take, in terms of blood and treasure, “he said.

“Consequently, if the United States wants to minimize the risk of being trained in an unnecessary war in the Middle East, and at least minimize the risks for people in the region, including the Americans in the region, then it should be in the interest of the White House to put an end to the fighting-whether or not it is”