Senate vote to halt extension of Iran War fails

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war, but this has only happened 11 times in the country’s history, and not once since the Second World War.

Instead, presidents have been able to involve US troops in conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan through their status as commander-in-chief of the armed forces without a formal declaration of war.

And, since 2001, various administrations have relied on an AUMF approved in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, which has never been repealed, to authorise military operations in the Middle East.
Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who co-sponsored the latest resolution, was the only GOP senator to break ranks to support it.

Conversely, Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman crossed the floor to vote with the Republicans against the measure.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, urged colleagues to back the resolution, saying: “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

But Maine’s Susan Collins, a moderate Republican who has been outspoken in her criticism of Trump, said that the resolution would send the wrong message to US service personnel.

"At this juncture, providing unequivocal support to our service members is critically important, as is ongoing consultation by the administration with Congress,” she added.

Presenting the administration’s position, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, himself a former senator for Florida, pointed out that “no presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional – not Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents”.

He insisted that the Department of War had complied with the law by notifying key congressional leaders – the so-called Gang of Eight, made up of both parties’ leaders from both houses, as well as the senior members of the House and Senate intelligence committees – prior to the initial strikes on Saturday.

However, Democratic lawmakers have criticised the administration’s approach, arguing that the aims of the military operation have not been clearly established.

Rubio was heavily criticised earlier this week after appearing to suggest that the US was forced to launch strikes on Iran because Israel was already set to do so.

Speaking at a press conference at the Capitol on Monday, he told reporters: “It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone – the United States or Israel or anyone – they were going to respond, and respond against the United States.

"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

He was subsequently publicly contradicted by Trump, who said: “If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

Attempting to clarify his remarks during another media briefing on Tuesday, Rubio said: “I told you, this had to happen anyway, the president made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile programme.

"The bottom line is this. We, the president, determined we were not going to get hit first.”