US Senate votes down resolution to restrict Trump from escalating Iran war
The vote on the resolution, introduced by the Democratic senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, split along mainly partisan lines. One Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted for it; one Democrat, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against it.
'Congress declares war,' Kaine said in a speech on the Senate floor. He stressed that the framers of the US constitution in 1787 were so wary of giving the power to start wars to one person that they did not even entrust it to George Washington, the first commander-in-chief.
'They decided that war was too big a decision for one person,' Kaine said. 'And so they wrote a constitution that said the United States should not be at war without a vote of Congress.'
The measure would have compelled Trump to seek authorization from Congress before taking any further military action.
Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities on 22 June. This directly followed Israel launching attacks on Iran, and Iran retaliating. Trump said that the US bombardment 'totally obliterated' key nuclear enrichment facilities and deemed the mission a success, although some initial reports said the damage was minimal. Iran condemned the attacks.
Trump claimed on Friday that Iran had halted its nuclear ambitions after the bombings. But, he said, he would 'absolutely' continue to attack the country's nuclear sites if he believed it was once again enriching uranium.
'Time will tell,' Trump said at the White House. 'But I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon.'
Later on Friday, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, rebuked Trump on social media. 'If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers', Araghchi wrote on X.
'The Great and Powerful Iranian People, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had NO CHOICE but to RUN to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our Missiles, do not take kindly to Threats and Insults', Iran's top diplomat added, in something approximating Trump's own social media style. 'If Illusions lead to worse mistakes, Iran will not hesitate to unveil its Real Capabilities, which will certainly END any Delusion about the Power of Iran.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Washington has crushed Trump's Maga revolution
New presidential administrations often spur talk of revolution in Washington, and that goes double for Donald Trump. Supporters promise an end to the old politics; opponents warn of the end of America as we've known it. But the minute anything needs to be done through Congress, the forces of politics as usual reassert themselves. So it is with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. The gigantic tax and budget bill isn't just the centrepiece of Trump's legislative agenda. Given the narrow Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the power of the Senate filibuster to block party-line bills outside of the tax and budget context, and the disinterest of all sides in forging bipartisan compromise, the bill is likely to be Trump's entire legislative agenda for 2025-26. There was a lot of talk about how the bill would do big, dramatic things and break with Republican policies of the past in favour of a new, populist agenda. Perhaps, Trump suggested, Republicans would raise taxes on the wealthy. There was fierce lobbying to undo some provisions of the 2017 Trump tax bill. But the forces of political gravity are not so easily defied. From the beginning, Republicans understood that this was a must-pass bill. Without it, not only would many of the 2017 tax cuts expire, but the GOP would likely miss the opportunity to satisfy priorities such as funding more immigration enforcement. In the end, the bill passed the House by just one vote, 215-214 (with two Republicans voting no and three others absent or abstaining), and did the same in the Senate, with vice-president JD Vance casting the 51-50 tiebreaker (with three Republicans voting no). The bill's passage followed a 'vote-a-thon' of record length in the Senate, as Senators voted down one amendment after another. When a must-pass bill needs every single yes vote to pass, that's a lot of people who have to be appeased or outright paid off. If the House baulks at the Senate's changes, the same dynamic is apt to repeat itself. So, the broad outlines of the bill look a lot more like traditional conservative policymaking with some Trump flavouring. Tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are preserved, and coupled with working-class tax relief such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and car loans. There's more money for warships and other weapons, and also for the tools of border enforcement (a wall, more agents, and more detention facilities). Poverty programmes such as Medicaid are subjected to work requirements, tightened eligibility rules, and restrictions on benefits for immigrants. The bill cuts back on subsidies for student-loan repayments and green energy. Republican moderates got their own concessions. The deduction for state and local taxes, which effectively subsidises high-tax blue states, was raised from $10,000 to $40,000 (at significant cost to the budget deficit) to secure a few votes from blue-state Republicans, mainly in the northeast. The child tax credit was expanded, which amounts to a payout to many lower-income taxpayers. Alaska was given more generous treatment in some benefits programmes once Senator Lisa Murkowski's vote became a must-have. Hospital and nursing-home lobbies made out like bandits. Fiscal hawks who wanted deeper spending cuts are instead presented with a bill that does nothing to alter the debt-ridden nation's grim fiscal trajectory. Other conservative ambitions were scaled back or ended on the cutting room floor. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood was defunded from the Medicaid programme – a long-time goal of pro-lifers – but the Senate cut the duration of that defunding to one year. The Senate version also cut out plans to ban Medicaid funding for gender transitions, sell public lands in the West, tax third-party funding of lawsuits, or prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence or giving state-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants. A Senate effort to reduce the federal subsidy for Obamacare health insurance plans was scrapped. The end result is a bill nobody likes – which is how lawmaking in Washington usually works. Among Republicans, only the handful of purist fiscal conservatives casting 'no' votes are truly at peace with their votes. Trump and Vance can doubtless sell the deal to Maga diehards as a necessity, and the donor class will be pleased. Democrats are back in their happy place, complaining that Republicans are cutting taxes on the rich and paying for it with welfare cuts for the poor – a hymn they've been singing since the 1930s. Voters instinctively dislike the bill because it's huge and messy, but that's precisely why they're unlikely to remember much about it a year and a half from now at midterm election time other than the Medicaid cuts, which Democrats aim to make the centrepiece of their campaigns. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Zohran Mamdani isn't as clever as he thinks
A bizarre obsession with the Palestinian issue continues to poison progressive politics – including (surprise!) the campaign of Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic nominee for New York's mayoral race has refused to condemn the phrase 'globalise the intifada', despite sharp criticism from fellow Democrats. The phrase, seen by many as a call for violence against Jews, is actually 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights,' said Mamdani, not long before his surprising win. Then, this past weekend, he again declined to decry the phrase. Instead, he meekly noted 'that's not language that I use,' on the news show Meet the Press, before adding that he would serve as a mayor 'that protects Jewish New Yorkers' if ultimately elected in November. Mamdani's equivocations are hardly surprising. Presumably he thinks he's being clever by attempting to reassure Jewish voters, while signalling a quiet approval for some of the darkest rhetoric of the Palestinian cause. But he has actually exposed how sinister his campaign really is. He's made championing Palestinian nationalism a cornerstone of his political career – despite (beyond his Muslim faith) having very little in common with most Palestinians. The son of an Oscar-nominated film-maker mother and university professor father, Mamdani – like so many who voted for him last week – is the product of privilege, with scant experience in politics or holding a job, let alone of real 'oppression'. He exists in a world of feelings and vibes – in place of consequence or facts. And Mamdani has given every indication of believing that calling for 'intifada' – despite its clear association with bus bombings, knife attacks and thousands of Jewish dead (it means uprising in Arabic and is used to refer to two periods of Palestinian violence against Israelis) – is legitimate political discourse. The investor Bill Ackman – who helped take down former Harvard president Claudine Gay – took to X on Monday to ask: 'What if someone called for the killing or suicide bombings of those of a different ethnic background, Zohran, would you not be willing to condemn such a call to violent action? Or is it just for the Jews that you remain silent?' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joined the attack, saying Mamdani would 'have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward,' during a weekend appearance on ABC's This Week. 'Globalising the intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing.' Both Ackman and Jeffries could not be more correct. That too many progressives accept effective calls for violence against Jews that they would never tolerate for other ethnicities is not just limited to phrases like 'globalise the intifada'. The double-standard reflects the entire pro-Palestinian movement since the Hamas attack on Israel two Octobers ago. The violent encampments in cities like New York, the wide-scale property damage and, now, the numerous deaths in the United States directly attributed to anti-Semitism somehow avoid the type of critique heaped upon even the most minor affronts against, say, African-Americans or sexual minorities. In 2020, recall that New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned after the paper published an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton that some black staffers felt made them unsafe, merely because it suggested calling in the National Guard during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests. Mamdani, meanwhile, continues to campaign as the Democrat nominee despite refusing to condemn a phrase that Jews rightly perceive as a call for their murder. Will Mamdani eventually clarify his position? Don't hold your breath. Like so many on the extreme-Left, Mamdani exists within a bubble of impunity that ascribes negative motives to anyone who criticises its stances. Question the morality of phrases like 'intifada', goes the thinking, and you're a 'Zionist' whose opinion can be safely discounted. Malicious equivocation is also a veritable party trick for Mamdani. He has refused to say that he supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation. He's said he supports its right to exist 'as a state with equal rights'. But he has added that 'I'm not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else'. We've heard this all before – including from Mamdani's own mother, director Mira Nair, who in 2013 refused to participate in the Haifa International Film festival, saying she would 'go to Israel when the state does not privilege one religion over another'. They conveniently ignore the Muslims and people of other faiths who do, in fact, enjoy equal rights in Israel. Perhaps I've also missed their criticism of the numerous nations that actually do oppress minority religions – either in practice or in law. Saudi Arabia prohibits the public worship of any religion other than Islam. Across much of the Middle East, countries once known for their religious diversity are no longer safe for Jews or Christians. Why are the likes of Mamdani allowed by their interviewers to get away with it? However overwhelmed and underprepared they are, they must know that they are not dealing with normal politicians, but radicals for whom the obsession with Israel has become almost a pathology. Many New York voters – including my fellow New York Jews – have failed to see through Mamdani. But now he has to win over the wider New York electorate, not just the Democratic base. Let's hope that we don't have to wait for him to put his agenda into practice before everyone wakes up to the truth.
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
It shouldn't take Trump to tell Netanyahu to end it
Do you want to look wise before an audience of foreign policy experts? Would you like to humour the average Western diplomat? One sure-fire way is to mutter sagely that any leader who tries to reshape the Middle East is bound to come to grief. The grand panjandrums will never admit it, but the prime minister they most heartily despise – Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel – has managed to transform the strategic balance of the region with astonishing speed. In just nine months, he has eviscerated Hezbollah in Lebanon, triggered the downfall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and wrecked the nuclear ambitions of Iran's regime. One by one, superficial and widely-believed assumptions – that Hezbollah was impregnable, that Assad was safe as houses, that Donald Trump would never send US forces into action in the Middle East, and that Iran's nuclear programme was indestructible – have tumbled ignominiously to the ground. Now, precisely because of that success, the time has come for Mr Netanyahu to draw a line. He should accept America's proposed ceasefire in Gaza and stop the killing. Everywhere else, he has succeeded. In the rubble and misery of Gaza, he can at least bring Israel's Carthaginian campaign to an end. True enough, the great minds of the foreign policy world are already questioning Israel's military achievements. Many are deeply invested in the adamantine belief that military action can only ever achieve a short delay in Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon. Every plant can be rebuilt and every centrifuge repaired or replaced, or so runs the argument. Very soon, the vital elements of Iran's nuclear enterprise might be just as menacing as before. Hence the attention paid to Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, when he said that in 'a matter of months' Iran would have 'a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium'. But a 'few cascades' – which means, at most, a few hundred centrifuges – is only a fraction of the 20,000 that were installed in Iran's nuclear plants at Natanz and Fordow before they were bombed by America and Israel last month. Even if Mr Grossi is right and Iran swiftly rebuilds its ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade, it would still need to convert that material into the solid form used for the core of a nuclear bomb. One problem: Israeli bombs have flattened the conversion facility required for this task. And where exactly will Iran find the scientists with the expertise for this supremely delicate operation? Are they still alive? We know that Israel has killed many of Iran's nuclear experts and training their replacements will be the work of years, if not decades. Here is another problem: given that Mr Netanyahu's spies have obviously penetrated every level of Iran's regime – particularly the nuclear programme – any scientists or officials who might be ordered to rebuild the whole effort will have to be thoroughly investigated and vetted. Those who do the vetting will themselves need to be vetted. Once again, this is the work of years. Israeli intelligence seems to have spent decades recruiting agents in the most sensitive pillars of the Iranian state; rooting them out again could take just as long, even supposing that it's possible at all. As for the destruction of Hezbollah and the downfall of Assad, our diplomats will say that Israel has been tactically adept but strategically blind. They will quote the great Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, on how 'war is the continuation of politics by other means' and they will say that Israel's campaign has killed individuals without achieving a political outcome favourable to its interests. Yet, once again, there are good reasons to question this familiar analysis. After the elimination of Hezbollah's entire leadership and thousands of other operatives, the terrorist movement could not prevent an avowed opponent, Joseph Aoun, from becoming President of Lebanon in January. In former years, Hezbollah had the power to veto Lebanese presidential candidates but no longer. That is one squarely political benefit of Israel's campaign. Meanwhile, the disembowelling of Hezbollah deprived Assad of the most reliable force keeping him in power in neighbouring Syria. His flight into exile cleared the way for new leaders who are now negotiating through American mediators for a possible normalisation and peace agreement with Israel. Earlier efforts never got anywhere under Assad, but they might under his successor. If so, Israel will have achieved a political goal that would have satisfied Clausewitz. But Gaza is the great exception. What is the objective of Mr Netanyahu's ever more futile campaign, now the longest and bloodiest war in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict? What cause could justify such suffering among ordinary Palestinians? A deal has been on the table for months. Hamas will release all the Israeli hostages in return for a permanent truce and a withdrawal of forces. Having reshaped the region and confounded his critics, Mr Netanyahu should now do what is both right and wise. He should take what is on offer in Gaza, bring the hostages home and end the war.
