The debate over a U.S role in Israel’s war with Iran raises two big questions: 1) Should the U.S. intervene? 2) Who gets to make that decision? At stake are human lives, expense, and potential repercussions. The second question also involves constitutional responsibilities long neglected by Congress in favor of letting presidents take credit, or blame, for military actions. While President Donald Trump seems inclined to continue the tradition of unilateral warmaking, lawmakers skeptical of U.S. intervention are asserting themselves. They’re right that the legislative branch should have a say.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.’s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Last week, Israel attacked Iran because its security agencies believe the country is poised to build nuclear weapons—an existential threat in their eyes given the many promises Iran’s rulers have made to destroy “the Zionist regime.” While Israelis have long fretted about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, they’ve also done their best to slow their progress; those efforts have reached their limit, they say.
Supporting Israel’s claims is the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent criticism of “Iran’s many failures to uphold its obligations” regarding its nuclear programs and warnings of “the rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran, the only State without nuclear weapons that is producing such material.”
But even without nuclear weapons, Israelis have good reason to consider Iran’s government a dangerous enemy. It has threatened to destroy Israel and acted to kill Israelis through regional proxies.
“Hamas has been one of the primary vehicles supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran in its strategy of confronting Israel on multiple fronts, with at least three fronts established since the 1980s,” Arman Mahmoudian of the University of South Florida Global and National Security Institute wrote after the October 7 attack on Israel. Hezbollah is another terrorist group for which Iran is the “chief benefactor.”
So, as casus belli go, Israel has legitimate reason for targeting Iran’s government.
Whether the U.S. should support Israel’s efforts is another matter. Israel wants American assistance—especially in taking out the underground Fordo uranium enrichment facility. U.S. bunker-buster bombs may be the most effective way to destroy a site buried under a mountain. But is that enough reason for Americans born and raised thousands of miles from the conflict to be sent into harm’s way?
Trump, who criticized this country’s years-long intervention in Iraq, appears to have shifted from initial skepticism to strongly considering the idea. “I may do it, I may not do it,” he commented on Wednesday, even as The Wall Street Journal reported he’d already approved attack plans and was awaiting Iran’s response to demands to “surrender.” Iran’s leadership seems disinclined to do anything of the sort, and by the time this column runs, American bombers may already have struck Fordo.
That means we’re waiting on the whim of one man. That’s not how this is supposed to work.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Article 2 specifies the president “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” That power is to be exercised after Congress has declared war, or in defense of the country when attacked.
Many presidents have chafed at the restrictions of their enumerated powers and engaged in military actions without the formality of congressional declarations of war. Congress tried reining that in with 1973’s War Powers Resolution to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities.” That resolution specifies that the president can only engage in hostilities “pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States.”
Presidents have pretty much ignored that, leading us to yet another moment when one official might launch a war on his own judgment. Some lawmakers are pushing back.
“The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States,” objects Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). “Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”
“There’s no part of the Constitution that’s more important than the Article One provision making plain that the United States should not be at war without a vote of Congress,” agrees Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). “Yet the news of the day suggests that we are potentially on the verge of a war with Iran.”
With colleagues, both lawmakers have introduced resolutions in Congress directing Trump to refrain from hostilities with Iran without congressional authorization. “The question of whether United States forces should be engaged in hostilities against Iran should be answered following a full briefing to Congress and the American public of the issues at stake, a public debate in Congress, and a congressional vote as contemplated by the Constitution,” the Senate version states.
Given the high stakes, that’s more than fair. The U.S. recently concluded a two-decade involvement in Afghanistan with little to show for our efforts and the lives and treasure expended. We still have troops in Iraq more than 20 years after we invaded that country. Those aren’t reasons to never engage in military action again, but they provide a good foundation for abiding by the Constitution’s requirement that war be debated and voted on by Congress, not just waged from the White House.
Joining Israel in attacking Iran may make sense. Iran’s backing for terrorism has harmed Americans and the country’s government targeted the current president, before his reelection, for assassination. I’m inclined to be sympathetic to air strikes on Fordo, but not to involvement on the ground.
But conflicts don’t abide by plans. An attack could have repercussions in terms of expanded war and unconventional retaliation. Iran’s regime could collapse and be replaced by something even worse.
Which is to say, the Constitution puts guardrails on military conflicts for a reason. Before war is waged and lives put on the line, Congress should debate the matter and put it to a vote.
