US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
The Republican-led US Senate rejected a Democratic-led bid on Friday to block Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the President said he would consider more bombing.
The Senate vote was 53 to 47, along party lines, against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran.
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a member of the Senate armed services and foreign relations committees, on introduced the bill last week. The legislation expressed concern about the escalating violence in the Middle East and its potential to pull the US into conflict - which it–ultimately did when Mr Trump ordered strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure days later.
'It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States,' the Democratic senator said. 'I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict."
Asked o' Friday if he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Mr Trump said: 'Sure, without question.'
Passage of the resolution was seen as a long shot. Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and have overwhelmingly stood with the President in support of his decision to strike Iran. There were some fractures in the Make America Great Again movement that seem largely to have healed now that it seems the strikes will not provoke a longer conflict.
Most Republicans hold that Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Mr Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have cast doubt on that justification, arguing the President should have come to Congress first. They also said the President did not update them adequately, with Congress's first briefings taking place on Thursday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dubai Eye
44 minutes ago
- Dubai Eye
Rwanda, Congo sign peace deal in US to end fighting, attract investment
Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo signed a US-brokered peace agreement on Friday, raising hopes for an end to fighting that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year. The agreement marks a breakthrough in talks held by US President Donald Trump's administration and aims to attract billions of dollars of Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. At a ceremony with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, the two African countries' foreign ministers signed the agreement pledging to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern Congo within 90 days, according to a copy seen by Reuters. Kinshasa and Kigali will also launch a regional economic integration framework within 90 days, the agreement said. "They were going at it for many years... it is one of the worst wars that anyone has ever seen. And I just happened to have somebody that was able to get it settled," Trump said on Friday, ahead of the signing of the deal in Washington. "We're getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it." Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called the agreement a turning point. Congo Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner said it must be followed by disengagement. Trump later met both officials in the Oval Office, where he presented them with letters inviting Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame to Washington to sign a package of agreements that Massad Boulos, Trump's senior adviser for Africa, dubbed the "Washington Accord". Nduhungirehe told Trump that past deals had not been implemented and urged Trump to stay engaged. Trump warned of "very severe penalties, financial and otherwise", if the agreement is violated. Rwanda has sent at least 7,000 soldiers over the border, according to analysts and diplomats, in support of the M23 rebels, who seized eastern Congo's two largest cities and lucrative mining areas in a lightning advance earlier this year. The gains by M23, the latest cycle in a decades-old conflict with roots in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, sparked fears that a wider war could draw in Congo's neighbours. ECONOMIC DEALS Boulos told Reuters in May that Washington wanted the peace agreement and accompanying minerals deals to be signed simultaneously this summer. Rubio said on Friday that heads of state would be "here in Washington in a few weeks to finalise the complete protocol and agreement". However, the agreement signed on Friday gives Congo and Rwanda three months to launch a framework "to expand foreign trade and investment derived from regional critical mineral supply chains". A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Friday that another agreement on the framework would be signed by the heads of state at a separate White House event at an unspecified time. There is an understanding that progress in ongoing talks in Doha - a separate but parallel mediation effort with delegations from the Congolese government and M23 - is essential before the signing of the economic framework, the source said. The agreement signed on Friday voiced "full support" for the Qatar-hosted talks. It also says Congo and Rwanda will form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days and implement a plan agreed last year to monitor and verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers within three months. Congolese military operations targeting the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Congo-based armed group that includes remnants of Rwanda's former army and militias that carried out the 1994 genocide, are meant to conclude over the same timeframe.
Dubai Eye
44 minutes ago
- Dubai Eye
Radiation levels in Gulf remain normal, says UN nuclear watchdog
Radiation levels in the Gulf region remain normal after the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict severely damaged several nuclear facilities in Iran, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said. Grossi noted that any significant radioactive release would have been detected by the 48-nation International Radiation Monitoring System (IRMIS). He added that "Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant and the Tehran Research Reactor represented our main concern as any strike affecting those facilities – including their off-site power lines – could have caused a radiological accident with potential consequences in Iran as well as beyond its borders". "It did not happen, and the worst nuclear safety scenario was thereby avoided." Grossi reiterated that nuclear facilities should never be attacked, and emphasised the need for IAEA inspectors to continue their verification activities in Iran. He added that information from Iran's Nuclear Regulatory Authority show there is no increased off-site radiation levels in the nuclear sites.
Dubai Eye
44 minutes ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion," said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017-2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said.
