The New York Times :
The killing of the powerful commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Maj Gen Qasem Soleimani, in a drone strike Friday sharply divided congressional leaders along party lines and reignited a debate over whether Congress should curtail the president’s war powers.
The strike, which the Pentagon said President Donald Trump ordered and was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans,” was a significant escalation in the administration’s pressure campaign against Tehran.
“This particular scenario is one that I’ve thought about for many years and it is one that could very well lead to the type of violence and chaos that we’ve been so desperately trying to keep ourselves out of,” said Rep. Andy Kim, D-NJ, the former director for Iraq on former President Barack Obama’s National Security Council. “The coming hours and days will be very important.”
The strike, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was carried out “without the consultation of Congress.”
“American leaders’ highest priority is to protect American lives and interests. But we cannot put the lives of American service members, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions,”
Pelosi said in a statement. “Tonight’s airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence.” Republican lawmakers praised the president for the strike, saying that Trump had brought justice to scores of American military families. US officials considered Soleimani, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ elite Quds Force, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers during the Iraq War and hostile Iranian activities throughout the Middle East.
“His death presents an opportunity for Iraq to determine its own future free from Iranian control,” said Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “As I have previously warned the Iranian government, they should not mistake our reasonable restraint in response to their previous attacks as weakness.”
Sen Marco Rubio, R-Fla, said on Twitter that Trump had “exercised admirable restraint while setting clear red lines & the consequences for crossing them.”
The Quds, Rubio wrote, “are entirely to blame for bringing about the dangerous moment now before us.”
But Democrats worried about the consequences of the strike.
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., called Soleimani an “enemy of the United States with American blood on his hands.” “But the question we’ve grappled with for years in Iraq was how to kill more terrorists than we create,” Moulton said in a statement. “That’s an open question tonight as we await Iran’s reaction to Donald Trump’s escalation, which could ignite a regional war, with still no strategy from the administration.”
Other lawmakers, like Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, accused Trump of bringing the nation “to the brink of an illegal war with Iran.”
“Such a reckless escalation of hostilities is likely a violation of Congress’ war-making authority – as well as our basing agreement with Iraq – putting US forces and citizens in danger,” Udall said in a statement, “and very possibly sinking us into another disastrous war in the Middle East that the American people are not asking for and do not support.”
Udall, as part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers, had fought last year to pass a measure that would have required Trump to get Congress’ permission before striking Iran. But the resolution, which would have needed Trump’s signature, was jettisoned by the Senate in June. Another attempt to squeeze the amendment into the National Defence Authorisation Act, the must-pass annual defence bill, was stripped out of the final version of the legislation.
“Any member who voted for the NDAA – a blank check – can’t now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East,” said Rep Ro Khanna, D-Calif, one of the sponsors of the measure. “Our Congress let our nation down again by failing to stand up against a war in Iran.”
The killing of the powerful commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Maj Gen Qasem Soleimani, in a drone strike Friday sharply divided congressional leaders along party lines and reignited a debate over whether Congress should curtail the president’s war powers.
The strike, which the Pentagon said President Donald Trump ordered and was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans,” was a significant escalation in the administration’s pressure campaign against Tehran.
“This particular scenario is one that I’ve thought about for many years and it is one that could very well lead to the type of violence and chaos that we’ve been so desperately trying to keep ourselves out of,” said Rep. Andy Kim, D-NJ, the former director for Iraq on former President Barack Obama’s National Security Council. “The coming hours and days will be very important.”
The strike, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was carried out “without the consultation of Congress.”
“American leaders’ highest priority is to protect American lives and interests. But we cannot put the lives of American service members, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions,”
Pelosi said in a statement. “Tonight’s airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence.” Republican lawmakers praised the president for the strike, saying that Trump had brought justice to scores of American military families. US officials considered Soleimani, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ elite Quds Force, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers during the Iraq War and hostile Iranian activities throughout the Middle East.
“His death presents an opportunity for Iraq to determine its own future free from Iranian control,” said Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “As I have previously warned the Iranian government, they should not mistake our reasonable restraint in response to their previous attacks as weakness.”
Sen Marco Rubio, R-Fla, said on Twitter that Trump had “exercised admirable restraint while setting clear red lines & the consequences for crossing them.”
The Quds, Rubio wrote, “are entirely to blame for bringing about the dangerous moment now before us.”
But Democrats worried about the consequences of the strike.
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., called Soleimani an “enemy of the United States with American blood on his hands.” “But the question we’ve grappled with for years in Iraq was how to kill more terrorists than we create,” Moulton said in a statement. “That’s an open question tonight as we await Iran’s reaction to Donald Trump’s escalation, which could ignite a regional war, with still no strategy from the administration.”
Other lawmakers, like Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, accused Trump of bringing the nation “to the brink of an illegal war with Iran.”
“Such a reckless escalation of hostilities is likely a violation of Congress’ war-making authority – as well as our basing agreement with Iraq – putting US forces and citizens in danger,” Udall said in a statement, “and very possibly sinking us into another disastrous war in the Middle East that the American people are not asking for and do not support.”
Udall, as part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers, had fought last year to pass a measure that would have required Trump to get Congress’ permission before striking Iran. But the resolution, which would have needed Trump’s signature, was jettisoned by the Senate in June. Another attempt to squeeze the amendment into the National Defence Authorisation Act, the must-pass annual defence bill, was stripped out of the final version of the legislation.
“Any member who voted for the NDAA – a blank check – can’t now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East,” said Rep Ro Khanna, D-Calif, one of the sponsors of the measure. “Our Congress let our nation down again by failing to stand up against a war in Iran.”
