Support the Massie-Khanna Iran Resolution

Once again, the Middle East is at war. This time, the belligerents are Israel and Iran, who have been in their own regional cold war for decades. The stakes: with Iran’s proxy empire in disarray, Israel sees an opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions and prevent a deadly enemy from obtaining the bomb. Israel’s air force (like usual) has been terrible, swift, and effective, destroying Iranian air defenses, decapitating its military, and hitting key nuclear and infrastructure sites.

But it faces an obstacle in Fordow, the Iranian mountain fortress that hosts key components of its nuclear program. Israel does not, as far as the public information goes, possess the military means to destroy Fordow. It has no bunker busters that can take on a mountain, and it has no plane that could deliver the only known such bunker buster (the US-made MOP). It probably does have its own nuclear weapon, but first-strike nuking a non-nuclear power is probably a red line even Netanyahu won’t cross.

Fordow creates a dilemma for Israel, because they can’t achieve their war aims without destroying it and they don’t have the weapons to destroy it. But they do have an ally with those weapons: the USA. Unsurprisingly, then, the Israeli government has been lobbying the US to join the war on their side. So far, President Trump has not given the order to attack. In his most recent statement (through his press secretary), he has said he will decide ‘in the next two weeks’ whether to join the war.

Now, offhand, it’s a bit curious that we consider this Trump’s decision at all. The power to declare war lives with Congress in the United States, and we are still at least kind of following the constitution. The last two US wars, Iraq II and Afghanistan, had a congressional fig leaf in “Authorization of the use of military force” resolutions, which are de facto war declarations. The post-9/11 “war on terror” authorization has been stretched pretty far to cover various US military attacks, but it’s not a blank check to attack whomever, whenever.

By law (the War Powers Resolution), presidents can use force under three conditions.

i. In a declared war

ii. In response to a statutory authorization

iii. To respond to an emergency created by an attack on “the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”

That’s it. Again, it does not seem like we are in any of those situations. War has not been declared, no law authorizes an attack on Iran, and Iran has conspicuously declined to create an emergency by attacking the US, its territories, possessions, or armed forces. As close an ally as Israel is, it is not one of those things, and the War Powers Resolution does not authorize pre-emptive action (merely possible attacks don’t count).

However, this is an act first/question later (or: forget about permission, refuse to apologize later) administration. So, lest some conservative lawyers get cute with the AUMF from 9/11, it is probably to the best that congress make clear that it has not authorized an Iran attack. There is a movement in congress to do just that, and it deserves popular support.

If you are against a war with Iran, it’s fairly obvious why you would do this. Congressional authorization is one more hurdle for the pro-war faction to clear and so makes war less likely. But supposing you support a war with Iran, I think there’s still a case to pass the congressional resolution.

First: the Massie-Khanna resolution (and its senate counterparts) does not rule out a war with Iran. They simply place the decision in the hands of congress, not the president. This is how the constitution’s framers envisioned things working. It also takes the decision out of the hands of a vindicative, mercurial man and places it with elected representatives who will have to face the electorate in coming years. It’s very likely that Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Iraq II war cost her the presidency, so this accountability is not trivial. War is serious business, and the people declaring it should be answerable for their actions. This is good general policy. You won’t support every war, so even if you’re a hawk this time, having a norm in place where congress authorizes wars is good for you in the long run.

Second: suppose it comes to war. A congressional declaration would lend the war legitimacy that a president acting alone can never claim. This won’t matter for your dedicated opponents. But for the undecided middle, and the disengaged plurality, this will matter. This war you want will not be the mythical “short victorious war.” It will require public support, and congressional appropriations. This means that legitimacy matters. It is in your interest, as a hawk, to get as much of the public on your side as you can. It’s pretty grim for you if you can’t even get congress in a triumvirate government.

Third: the resolutions will not limit the executive’s freedom of action. Say Iran does something radical like missile strikes on US bases or mining the Strait of Hormuz. The War Powers Resolution still applies. If we are in an emergency created by attacks on our forces, the president can move. Also, congress will certainly vote for war if those things happen.

In short, doves should support this resolution because it makes war less likely. Hawks should support this resolution because the increased legitimacy for a war that happens and the long-term benefits of a norm where congress authorizes wars (as the constitution intends) offset the lower probability of a war happening, and countervailing arguments like a restricted freedom of action aren’t very strong.

You can find your congressional representation here: https://www.congress.gov/contact-us

Here’s a template to fill in and send:

---

To: [title and name]

I am your constituent from [state/district], writing to you concerning the resolutions before congress that would require congressional authorization of military action against Iran. I believe it is both in the national interest and in accordance with the constitution’s allocation of powers that military action of this magnitude, in this situation, be explicitly authorized by congress. As a [your political affiliation], I will watch your actions carefully and remember them when you are next on the ballot.

[name and preferred closing]

---