Latest news with #WarPowersResolutionof
USA Today
10 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Senate rejects resolution to curb Trump's use of military in Iran
Sen. Tim Kaine won congressional approval of a similar resolution to prevent the use of the military in Iran during Trump's first term, but the president vetoed it. WASHINGTON – The Senate voted against curbing President Donald Trump's use of military force in Iran after the U.S. bombing of nuclear facilities and the fragile cease-fire that resulted. The 47 to 53 vote on June 27 killed the measure from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, which would have required a congressional vote before using the military against Iran again. His resolution was one of at least three pending in Congress that represented a dispute between the legislative and executive branches about who holds the keys to a U.S. attack on another country. Trump argued as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But Democrats note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. What is a war-powers resolution? The Constitution gives Congress the power 'to declare war.' In addition, lawmakers approved the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during the Vietnam War to require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limited the deployment of armed forces to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, in the absence of a formal declaration of war. But Trump and his allies note he is the commander in chief of the military and that swift, decisive military action is sometimes needed. 'It's a clear attempt to take a slap at President Trump and nothing more,' Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said of the resolution. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said forcing a congressional vote before military operations 'would paralyze this country.' Congress could cut off funding if lawmakers chose to do that, Graham said. 'This is a case study of the chaos that would be created,' Graham said. Trump told reporters at a June 27 White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point. "Sure, without question, absolutely," Trump said. Congress serves as check on 'dogs of war': Schiff Kaine had introduced his resolution days before Trump ordered the bombing against Iran on June 21. Kaine had sponsored a similar measure during Trump's first term that was approved by Congress but vetoed by Trump. Despite a cease-fire between Iran and Israel, Kaine said the framers of the Constitution placed the decision for declaring war into the hands of Congress even when George Washington was president. 'I pray the cease-fire continues but I fear we're going to be back here on this floor,' Kaine said. 'War is too big an issue to allow one person to make the decision that sends our sons and daughters into harm's way.' Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, said terminating the use of military weapons against Iran doesn't restrict the country from defending itself or sharing intelligence with Israel. 'There must be a check on the dogs of war,' Schiff said. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said wars are easy to start but often hard to end. 'Let's be clear: the threat was not imminent,' Merkley said. 'The administration instead acted precipitously, putting American lives at risk.' Two similar war-power resolutions are pending in the House Two similar resolutions are pending in the House. Votes could come in mid-July. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced one with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California. And the top Democrats of three committees – Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut on Intelligence, Gregory Meeks of New York on Foreign Affairs and Adam Smith of Washington on Armed Services – introduced another. "President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval, without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization," the lawmakers said in a joint statement June 23. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941. But he said there have been 125 military operations since then, including in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Then-President Joe Biden ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and then-President Barack Obama ordered an eight-month bombing campaign against Libya, Johnson said. Johnson, a constitutional attorney before launching his politics career, called the war-powers statute unconstitutional and a relic with reporting requirements to Congress no longer necessary because of 24-hour news cycles and social media. 'The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within Trump's Article II powers as commander in chief," Johnson said. "It shouldn't even be in dispute." Americans concerned about Iran retaliating for bombing: poll Americans were anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 23. Nearly four out of five Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East.
The Herald Scotland
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Dems try to curb Trump's use of military in Iran
Trump argues as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But lawmakers note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Votes on the measures in the Senate and House also carry political implications amid fears of Iranian retaliation, as numerous lawmakers weigh campaigns for president in 2028. Here is what we know about the war-powers debate: What will the Senate be voting on? Kaine introduced his resolution days before Trump ordered the bombing against Iran on June 21. Kaine had sponsored a similar measure during Trump's first term that was approved by Congress but vetoed by Trump. "I happen to believe that the United States engaging in a war against Iran - a third war in the Middle East since 2001 - would be a catastrophic blunder for this country," Kaine said on the Senate floor June 17. Under Senate rules, the measure has an expedited path to a floor vote by June 27. Because senators are expected to be debating Trump's tax and policy legislative package at the end of the week, the vote could come sooner. More: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is shrinking in the Senate: What to know Kaine said June 24 that the vote could come June 26 or 27, after Trump administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio provide lawmakers a classified briefing on the bombing. The Senate debate comes amid a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Iran, which Trump criticized both countries for violating. "I think they both violated it," Trump told reporters at the White House on June 24 before leaving for a NATO meeting in the Netherlands. "I'm not sure they did it intentionally. They couldn't rein people back." What is the War Powers Act? The Constitution gives Congress the power "to declare war." In addition, lawmakers approved the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during the Vietnam War to require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limited the deployment of armed forces to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, in the absence of a formal declaration of war. But Trump and his allies note he is the commander in chief of the military and that swift, decisive military action is sometimes needed. "There is only one Commander in Chief, and thank God it's President Trump," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina and a former military lawyer, said on social media June 22. "To all those claiming he acted outside his authority, you are dead wrong." House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941, but there have been 125 military operations since then, including in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Then-President Joe Biden ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and then-President Barack Obama ordered an eight-month bombing campaign against Libya, Johnson said. Johnson, a constitutional attorney before launching his politics career, called the war-powers statute unconstitutional and a relic with reporting requirements to Congress no longer necessary because of 24-hour news cycles and social media. "The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within Trump's Article II powers as commander in chief," Johnson said. "It shouldn't even be in dispute." Critics have questioned what was so urgent that required the strike June 21. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said Johnson was wrong and the law is constitutional. "There is a legal obligation for the administration to inform Congress about precisely what is happening," Schumer told reporters June 24. Some Republicans who have supported Trump opposed bombing Iran Several Republicans who have supported Trump on other issues parted ways with him over bombing Iran. Two of the critics are Kentucky Republicans: Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie. "There was no imminent threat to the United States," Massie said. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said she spent millions campaigning with Trump in 2024 but considered the attack a betrayal of his pledges to avoid foreign wars or try to change foreign governments. More: 'Bait and switch': Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Trump's Iran strike "It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!" Greene said June 23 on social media. "Contrary to brainwashed Democrat boomers think and protest about, Trump is not a king, MAGA is not a cult, and I can and DO have my own opinion." House votes expected later Two proposals are pending in the House. Massie introduced one with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California. And the top Democrats of three committees - Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut on Intelligence, Gregory Meeks of New York on Foreign Affairs and Adam Smith of Washington on Armed Services - introduced another. "President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval, without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization," the lawmakers said in a joint statement June 23. War-powers resolutions used to be designated for a House floor vote within 48 hours. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, said a GOP change in House rules at the start of the Congress to hold such votes after 15 legislative days meant the vote might not happen for weeks. "The question is what was the imminent threat to the United States of America," Jeffries told reporters June 24. "The question is what justified this particular action and was it even successful." Johnson told reporters June 24 he didn't have the power to stop a privileged resolution. But he said he spoke with Massie, who agreed the resolution may not be needed if the cease-fire holds. "We may not have to act upon that," Johnson said. "I hope we don't because it would be a terrible look and it will not pass the House because it's inappropriate and it's not a proper use of the law anyway." Polls show concerns about Iran conflict broadening Uncertainty about how the conflict with Iran will play out carries potential political risks for lawmakers considering presidential campaigns in 2028. "For most Democratic politicians, a vote in favor of the president's position involves significant risk and little benefit," said John Pitney Jr., a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College. "Whatever happens in Iran, any support for Trump will alienate core Democratic voters. That's especially true if things go badly." "There's a flip side to that coin," Pitney added. "Republican lawmakers know that any departure from the president's position will anger the White House." Americans were anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 23. Nearly four out of five Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East. In 2002, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001, some Democratic senators such as Hillary Clinton supported the congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq. But the lingering conflict became one of the political differences in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Obama, who wasn't yet serving in Congress for the Iraq vote but spoke out against the war, won the party's nomination en route to two terms in the White House.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Dems aim to curb Trump's use of military in Iran but GOP expects to kill bills
WASHINGTON – The Senate could vote as early as June 26 to curb President Donald Trump's use of military force in Iran, despite the fragile cease-fire and the expectation of Republican congressional leaders that the proposals will be defeated. The measure from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, is one of at least three pending in Congress amid a dispute between the legislative and executive branches about who holds the keys to a U.S. attack on another country. Trump argues as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But lawmakers note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Votes on the measures in the Senate and House also carry political implications amid fears of Iranian retaliation, as numerous lawmakers weigh campaigns for president in 2028. Here is what we know about the war-powers debate: Kaine introduced his resolution days before Trump ordered the bombing against Iran on June 21. Kaine had sponsored a similar measure during Trump's first term that was approved by Congress but vetoed by Trump. 'I happen to believe that the United States engaging in a war against Iran – a third war in the Middle East since 2001 – would be a catastrophic blunder for this country,' Kaine said on the Senate floor June 17. Under Senate rules, the measure has an expedited path to a floor vote by June 27. Because senators are expected to be debating Trump's tax and policy legislative package at the end of the week, the vote could come sooner. More: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is shrinking in the Senate: What to know Kaine said June 24 that the vote could come June 26 or 27, after Trump administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio provide lawmakers a classified briefing on the bombing. The Senate debate comes amid a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Iran, which Trump criticized both countries for violating. 'I think they both violated it,' Trump told reporters at the White House on June 24 before leaving for a NATO meeting in the Netherlands. 'I'm not sure they did it intentionally. They couldn't rein people back.' The Constitution gives Congress the power 'to declare war.' In addition, lawmakers approved the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during the Vietnam War to require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limited the deployment of armed forces to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, in the absence of a formal declaration of war. But Trump and his allies note he is the commander in chief of the military and that swift, decisive military action is sometimes needed. "There is only one Commander in Chief, and thank God it's President Trump," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina and a former military lawyer, said on social media June 22. "To all those claiming he acted outside his authority, you are dead wrong." House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941, but there have been 125 military operations since then, including in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Then-President Joe Biden ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and then-President Barack Obama ordered an eight-month bombing campaign against Libya, Johnson said. Johnson, a constitutional attorney before launching his politics career, called the war-powers statute unconstitutional and a relic with reporting requirements to Congress no longer necessary because of 24-hour news cycles and social media. 'The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within Trump's Article II powers as commander in chief," Johnson said. "It shouldn't even be in dispute." Critics have questioned what was so urgent that required the strike June 21. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said Johnson was wrong and the law is constitutional. 'There is a legal obligation for the administration to inform Congress about precisely what is happening," Schumer told reporters June 24. Several Republicans who have supported Trump on other issues parted ways with him over bombing Iran. Two of the critics are Kentucky Republicans: Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie. "There was no imminent threat to the United States," Massie said. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said she spent millions campaigning with Trump in 2024 but considered the attack a betrayal of his pledges to avoid foreign wars or try to change foreign governments. More: 'Bait and switch': Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Trump's Iran strike 'It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!' Greene said June 23 on social media. 'Contrary to brainwashed Democrat boomers think and protest about, Trump is not a king, MAGA is not a cult, and I can and DO have my own opinion." Two proposals are pending in the House. Massie introduced one with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California. And the top Democrats of three committees – Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut on Intelligence, Gregory Meeks of New York on Foreign Affairs and Adam Smith of Washington on Armed Services – introduced another. "President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval, without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization," the lawmakers said in a joint statement June 23. War-powers resolutions used to be designated for a House floor vote within 48 hours. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, said a GOP change in House rules at the start of the Congress to hold such votes after 15 legislative days meant the vote might not happen for weeks. 'The question is what was the imminent threat to the United States of America,' Jeffries told reporters June 24. 'The question is what justified this particular action and was it even successful.' Johnson told reporters June 24 he didn't have the power to stop a privileged resolution. But he said he spoke with Massie, who agreed the resolution may not be needed if the cease-fire holds. 'We may not have to act upon that," Johnson said. "I hope we don't because it would be a terrible look and it will not pass the House because it's inappropriate and it's not a proper use of the law anyway." Uncertainty about how the conflict with Iran will play out carries potential political risks for lawmakers considering presidential campaigns in 2028. 'For most Democratic politicians, a vote in favor of the president's position involves significant risk and little benefit,' said John Pitney Jr., a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College. 'Whatever happens in Iran, any support for Trump will alienate core Democratic voters. That's especially true if things go badly.' 'There's a flip side to that coin,' Pitney added. 'Republican lawmakers know that any departure from the president's position will anger the White House.' Americans were anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 23. Nearly four out of five Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East. In 2002, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001, some Democratic senators such as Hillary Clinton supported the congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq. But the lingering conflict became one of the political differences in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Obama, who wasn't yet serving in Congress for the Iraq vote but spoke out against the war, won the party's nomination en route to two terms in the White House. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Dems try to curb Trump's use of military in Iran
Newsweek
6 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a War Powers Resolution Tuesday, just days before President Donald Trump authorized a military strike on three key nuclear facilities in Iran. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without Congressional consent. The current legislative push invokes the act's provisions and highlights persistent congressional frustration over what many see as executive overreach in the deployment of military force. Khanna called for Congress to return to Washington, D.C., to vote on the measure, which he said Sunday had up to 50 co-sponsors across both parties. Why It Matters The House resolution spotlights a critical debate over constitutional war powers at a moment when U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts risks escalation. Lawmakers are seeking to reinforce Congress's authority to declare war amid rising tensions between Iran and Israel and amid U.S. military actions that, according to critics, may exceed presidential powers. The House initiative mirrors concurrent moves in the Senate, where Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and others have advanced parallel resolutions to restrict executive military action in Iran without legislative consent. This legislative surge reflects mounting concerns about the scope and legality of recent U.S. military activity abroad. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. Getty What To Know Massie introduced the War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress, not the President. Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported. Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace," Rep. Khanna concluded. The resolution has garnered support from 50 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out. What People Are Saying Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, said in an official statement "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace." President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, in part: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get." What Happens Next The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules. Parallel debates are ongoing in the Senate. As U.S. lawmakers weigh the resolution, the outcome may set new precedents for executive military authority and the balance of war powers between Congress and the White House.
The Hill
20-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
President Trump should end Iran's endless war on the world
For more than 40 years, Iran has waged a relentless shadow war against the U.S., its allies, and the free world. From the 1979 hostage crisis to its proxy terrorism, from nuclear brinkmanship to the chants of 'Death to America,' from cyberattacks to assassination plots, Tehran's aggression has been unyielding. Amid the clamor of diplomatic platitudes and partisan squabbles, a clear truth stands out: It is both a moral imperative and a cornerstone of American survival to end this endless war — not through appeasement, but through resolute strength. Iran is not a regional irritant but a global predator. Its threats are not theoretical. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and it has American blood on its hands. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has fueled attacks through such proxies as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, killing hundreds of U.S. servicemembers — 603 in Iraq alone, according to a 2019 Pentagon report. Its militias target our bases, its assassins target our leaders, its cyber-assaults probe our infrastructure, and its leaders openly promise our destruction. President Trump has full constitutional and statutory authority to respond to attacks against the U.S. without waiting for congressional permission. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 makes that clear. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force reinforces it. There is bipartisan agreement — even if it is selectively remembered. Why trust Trump to end this threat? Because unlike the armchair critics obsessed with avoiding so-called 'endless wars,' Trump actually has a record of strategic restraint paired with decisive action, prioritizing targeted operations over prolonged engagements. For example, he hit the Houthis for six weeks, not six years. He took on ISIS, dismantled its caliphate in two years, and walked away. He took out Qassem Soleimani — arguably the most dangerous terrorist on the planet at the time — and avoided the regional war that everyone said would follow. He did the same with Qasim al-Raymi, the leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He pushed back on al-Shabaab in Somalia, and then exited on his own terms. So Trump is not known to start wars. He responds to and ends threats — with precision, resolve and zero appetite for forever conflicts. That's not warmongering — that's peace through strength. The stakes are escalating. Iran's imminent pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens to upend the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Tehran would spark a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey racing to match it. Our troops in Qatar, Bahrain and Iraq would face immediate danger. Iran's terror networks, shielded by a nuclear deterrent, would strike with impunity. Ending Iran's war on the world does not mean diving into another quagmire. It demands a strategy of strength: airtight sanctions, unwavering support for allies like Israel, and targeted measures to disrupt Iran's nuclear and terror networks. Israel stands as our forward shield, delivering intelligence and military innovations like Iron Dome that bolster our own defenses. U.S. aid to Israel, spent on American defense jobs, is an investment in our security. To abandon this partnership is not restraint — it is folly. Some argue for disengagement, claiming Iran's threats are someone else's burden. But when a regime targets our shores, isolationism is a delusion. An emboldened Iran would choke oil routes through the Strait of Hormuz, spiking prices and hitting American wallets. It would deepen ties with Russia, China and North Korea, forming an anti-Western axis. Cyberattacks, terror plots and economic shocks would follow. Ignoring Iran doesn't neutralize it — it brings it closer to home. Others push for endless diplomacy, as if words alone can sway a regime built on defiance. Negotiation has its place, but only when backed by unrelenting pressure. Weakness invites aggression; strength compels restraint. Iran, Russia and China are watching. If we falter, our global deterrence unravels, inviting conflicts far costlier than the resolve we muster today. Ending Iran's endless war is the very essence of 'America First.' It means protecting our people, our prosperity and our principles by confronting a regime that has terrorized the world for too long. It means standing with allies who share our fight, not leaving them to face our mutual enemies alone. With Trump's proven resolve, we can act with the moral clarity to secure peace — not as a hope, but as a victory, won through courage and conviction. But the clock is ticking. Iran's war on the world has raged for four decades. It is time to end it — not with wishful thinking, but with the strength that safeguards our future. Mark Goldfeder is an international lawyer and a law professor at Touro University
