If Trump asks congress for approval to wage a war on Iran, he will probably get it.
“...the United States would encourage—and perhaps even assist—the Israelis in conducting the strikes themselves, in the expectation that both international criticism and Iranian retaliation would be deflected away from the United States and onto israel.” - Brookings Institution, 2009, “Which Path to Persia?”
"Any Democrat who supports this war with Iran needs to be primaried” - David Hogg, recently ousted Democratic National Committee Vice Chair
Is there a member of the United States congress who is unequivocally opposed to a military attack on Iran? Since Israel began its missile attack on June 13, 2025, most of the public comments from members of the House and the Senate have been decidedly pro-Israel. “Let Israel finish the job,” and even “Pray for Israel,” have been typical statements from the officials who are charged with representing the people of their country, most of whom oppose a U.S. war in that region.
In typical fashion, the Donald Trump administration first claimed that Israel’s attack was “unilateral” and that the U.S. had no involvement. The lie was so obvious as to be amusing, but Trump, in typical fashion, later said, “I always knew the date. Because I know everything.” No one needed Trump’s foolish bloviations to determine the truth. Israel would never have carried it out absent a U.S. stamp of approval and assistance.
But Iran struck back, and more successfully than Israel expected, proving that its “iron dome” missile defense system was not as impervious as had been claimed for many years. But there are other issues at hand. The argument against a nuclear armed Iran is a ruse, meant to cover up for a long held plot. Even Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, made clear that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. But Trump has thrown her under the bus, declaring, "I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.” In any case, regime change against the Iranian state has been settled U.S. foreign policy for decades. The would-be perpetrators have finally acted on what had been said openly by presidents, members of congress, and state controlled think tanks in their position papers.
There have been some tepid and mealy-mouthed efforts to constrain the Donald Trump administration from the U.S. entering the war openly and directly using its assets against Iran but they are not serious in intent. Republican congressman Thomas Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna have co-sponsored a resolution requiring congressional approval before any action is taken.
“Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran. (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the United States from defending itself from imminent attack.”
Massie and Khanna may be bragging about the resolution but it only says that Trump would have to go to congress before taking action. The words “unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran” give Trump and congress an out. If Trump asks permission we can only assume he will get it. Also, the words “imminent attack” are reminiscent of previous actions used allegedly preemptively. If the Trump administration claims that Iran is going to attack, then one can safely assume that congress would give bipartisan support and authorize warfare.
The same charade is playing out in the Senate. Bernie Sanders sponsored a bill called the No War Against Iran Act but as in the case of the House legislation, it proves that the devil is in the details.
“Except as provided in paragraph (2), no Federal funds may be obligated or expended for any use of military force in or against 25 Iran unless Congress has— (A) declared war; or (B) enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of military force after the date of the enactment of this Act that meets the requirements of the War Powers Resolution”
Like their House colleagues, Sanders and his co-sponsors only demand that Trump come to them for approval to directly wage war against Iran and we have little indication that a majority of Senators would do anything other than give him the go-ahead. So far, there has been no member of the House or Senate who has said they would oppose war between the U.S. and Iran whether authorization was requested or not.
The drive for war did not just begin this month. Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have been bluntly asking the U.S. to help in its dirty work for years. But Israel has friends in Washington, and not just because of American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) money. Israel is an integral part of U.S. imperialist designs on the region and the constant quest to gain and maintain hegemony.
Democrats as well as republicans have also been pushing Trump to scuttle any prospect of a nuclear agreement with Iran. In 2015, Barack Obama succeeded in getting a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which ended sanctions against Iran in exchange for a promise not to enrich uranium. Yet both democrats and republicans responded by inviting Netanyahu to speak to congress and declare his opposition to the president. Opposition to the JCPOA never ended, and in his first term, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement. His successor Joe Biden, could have easily rejoined the JCPOA but he followed Trump in staying out and in effect making the case for war.
It is very important to know this history of continued official U.S. hostility directed towards Iran. Despite the fact that Trump pretended to be engaged in good faith negotiations with Iran, warmongering democrats wanted to make sure he didn’t fail them. Charles Schumer, leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate, even made a video expressly condemning Trump for making what he called a “side deal” with Iran. It isn’t clear to anyone else what Schumer was talking about, but he made clear that war with Iran should remain U.S. policy, and so it has.
Trump may be the only president with his own social media site. He uses Truth Social to threaten the life of Iran’s head of state or tell the 10 million people living in the capital of Tehran to evacuate. It is easy to be distracted by Trump’s noise but he only differs from the rest of Washington in having a big mouth. There is consensus to directly use U.S. assets and join Israel in the attack.
There are no more than a handful of people in the House or the Senate who would vote against more war. The war party has always been bipartisan and recently ousted Democratic National Committee (DNC) Vice Chair David Hogg knows that better than anyone. He is correct that Democratic Party voters don’t want war and that anyone who votes for it should face a primary challenge. But Hogg was ousted precisely because he wouldn’t go along with the democrats' pretense of being an opposition party.
The people must be ready to mobilize themselves, and that is precisely because on the issue of war as with many others, they do not have any representation in Washington. Most Americans, even Trump voters, don’t want war, but once again, their concerns have been deemed irrelevant. By all means, write and call members of congress, but know that such actions won’t be substitutes for organizing against them.
Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents. You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on the Twitter, Bluesky, and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at margaret.kimberley@blackagendareport.com.
The state is not drifting toward repression; it is building it with serious intent. ICE raids, militarized police, and mass surveillance are the tools of a system designed to manage and silence…
“From journalists…the greatest need of the moment is sound analysis of the U.S. empire and the focusing of the news spotlight on its far-flung sinister operations.”
"Operation Piracy or Pedophile Protection, mates?" is the latest from BAR's Poet-in-Residence.
Jake Paul’s ascent in boxing is a cultural symptom of an empire in decline. It reflects a country that now prefers empty spectacle over real strength, both in sports and on the world stage.
To dismiss revolutionary theory is to choose permanent defeat, reducing the movement to a hamster wheel of reaction and co-opted rage.
