What Congress Could Do to Stop the War
The United States has been engaged in a war of choice against Iran for nearly two months, with ongoing negotiations failing to end the conflict. Despite the war's economic and geopolitical consequences, Republican-controlled Congress has largely supported President Donald Trump's military actions. Congress retains constitutional power to constrain the president through funding control, as demonstrated historically during the Vietnam War.
- ▪The U.S. has been conducting a bombing campaign against Iran that has destabilized the global economy and strained alliances.
- ▪Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal to limit the president’s war powers, even during a cease-fire.
- ▪Congress has the constitutional authority to restrict military funding, a power used in 1973 to prevent renewed operations in Southeast Asia after the Vietnam War.
- ▪Republican lawmakers continue to support the war, viewing it as politically advantageous despite declining approval ratings and internal party concerns.
- ▪The Iran war has not eliminated the regime’s nuclear capabilities, which remain intact within the country.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Analysis What Congress Could Do to Stop the War Republicans are declining to use their power of the purse. A pencil drawing of a man smiling and wearing glasses Julian E. Zelizer By Julian E. Zelizer, a columnist at Foreign Policy and a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. Sign up for Julian’s newsletter, The Long View, here. Veterans, military family members, and supporters are detained by U.S. Capitol Police officers during an demonstration in the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill, Washington, on April 20. Veterans, military family members, and supporters are detained by U.S. Capitol Police officers during an demonstration in the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill, Washington, on April 20.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Foreign Policy.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Foreign Policy
