Trump orders strikes on Iran without Congress approval

In a significant escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities without congressional authorization. This decision was announced on a Saturday night, amidst ongoing tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Lawmakers across the political spectrum criticized the move, arguing that it violated the War Powers Resolution, which requires congressional approval for military action. Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution aimed at preventing further unauthorized military actions against Iran. Many lawmakers warned that these strikes could provoke retaliation and even escalate into a broader conflict. Massachusetts lawmakers expressed their outrage, with Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey calling the airstrikes unconstitutional and a dangerous choice that could lead to an endless war. They emphasized that any military action should involve congressional debate and approval, reflecting a growing concern regarding the extent of presidential war powers. Illinois lawmakers echoed similar sentiments, with Democrats condemning the unilateral decision and Republicans generally supporting it. The decision to strike Iranian sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan was branded a military success by Trump, who claimed it was necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The discourse surrounding Trump's military action reflects deeper tension regarding U.S. foreign policy and the balance of power between Congress and the presidency. Critics argued that Trump's actions not only undermined constitutional processes but also heighten risks for American troops and allies in the region. Key lawmakers called for immediate action by Congress to clarify the legal framework for future military interventions in Iran, citing the 1973 War Powers Resolution that mandates consultation with Congress in military engagements. As lawmakers planned to address the issue, it became evident that, despite bipartisan concerns, there would be significant challenges in overriding any potential veto from Trump on measures attempting to limit military action against Iran. Additionally, there was a sense of urgency for Congress to address the implications of the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which have been referenced to justify military actions across numerous countries. This situation has pushed to the forefront the debate over how the U.S. engages with its adversaries and the importance of maintaining a system of checks and balances in military decisions.