House to vote today on curbing Trump actions against Iran

WASHINGTON – The House will vote Thursday on a measure limiting President Donald Trump’s ability to take military action against Iran without Congressional authorization as Democratic criticism of the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general intensified.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the planned vote in a one-page statement that said last week’s drone strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani was “provocative and disproportionate.”

The Democratic war powers resolution seems certain to pass over solid Republican opposition. A similar proposal by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., faces an uphill fight in the GOP-run Senate.

Because of a procedural dispute between the two parties, it was unclear whether Thursday’s vote would be a step toward binding Trump’s hands on Iran or a symbolic gesture of opposition by Democrats.

Republicans say the proposal – a special type of resolution that does not get the president’s signature – does not have the force of law. Democrats say that under the 1973 War Powers Act, it would be binding if also approved by the Senate. The matter has not been definitively decided by federal courts.

The House vote was scheduled after a briefing on Iran Wednesday by top administration officials that many Democrats criticized as lacking specific justification for the killing. Iran retaliated by launching missiles at two military bases in Iraq that house American troops. No casualties were reported.

“Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward,” Pelosi said in her statement.

“Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military” unless Congress declares war on that country or enacts legislation authorizing use of force to prevent an attack on the U.S. and its forces, the resolution says.

How tensions with Iran could reshape Democratic primary

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidates have spent the past year in a largely polite debate over domestic issues such as whether private health insurance should be eliminated in favor of a government-run program. That could change following escalating tensions this week between the U.S. and Iran.

The potential of open conflict involving the two countries was a reminder for many Democrats that for all the energy some progressive policy proposals have generated, the biggest decision a president makes often centers on whether and how to wage war. That could prompt some voters to reconsider which candidate they’ll back with just weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses.

“In the short run, there’s no question” that the developments could reshape the race, billionaire environmentalist and presidential candidate Tom Steyer said. “If there are simmering tensions but no war, then I think Americans will go back to spending their time thinking about the economy and basic domestic issues.”

Last week, President Donald Trump ordered the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at U.S. installations in Iraq. By Wednesday, both countries seemed to look for ways to de-escalate the situation.

Now Democratic campaigns are assessing the political implications of a volatile week.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, once the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a leading Obama administration voice on international affairs, has sought to seize the issue to portray himself as the best candidate to take on Trump.

“People are looking for the person who can help navigate us out of the mess that President Trump has created,” said Tony Blinken, Biden’s top foreign policy adviser.

But Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has sought to appeal to Democratic voters by reminding them that he opposed the Iraq War in 2003 when few others in Congress, like Biden, dared to do so.

Pete Buttigieg has recently faced pointed questions about his foreign policy as the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, population 103,000. But the 37-year-old former intelligence officer served in Afghanistan during 2014, giving him him a unique perspective among the candidates. .

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, meanwhile, spent months rising in the polls by promising to dramatically remake the political and economic systems. Her support appeared to be leveling off in recent weeks, though, and a greater focus on national security could make it tougher to recover.

History shows foreign policy developments have altered past Democratic primaries in the final stretch before voting begins – with diverging results.

During the 2004 primary, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was thought to be surging and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry floundering until U.S. forces’ capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003 helped redraw the contours of the race barely a month before the Iowa caucuses.

Kerry ultimately lost the general election to Republican George W. Bush. Still, by 2008, war fatigue helped Democrat Barack Obama score an upset win in Iowa as he offered a dovish alternative to his primary rival Hillary Clinton, who backed the invasion of Iraq as a New York senator.

The question heading into 2020’s Iowa caucuses is whether voters are in a 2004 or a 2008 mood.

Kerry has endorsed Biden, and as he campaigned in Iowa for the candidate on Wednesday he recalled Hussein’s capture and said “at that moment in time it was important to have a president who had experience to be a commander in chief.“