Trump’s threat to strike Iran raises public concerns, congressional questions

Trump’s threat to strike Iran raises public concerns, congressional questions

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has renewed his threat of military action against Iran, raising questions about public support for the war and Congress’s ability to restrain further escalation. With midterm elections approaching on November 3, polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the war, particularly over rising fuel prices and the risk to American troops. Reports of renewed US-Israeli military planning have also raised concerns about possible strikes after the elections. Trump made his latest threat at a rally in Florida on Friday. “We may do another little Epic Fury,” he said, referring to the US military operation against Iran. He gave no details about when another operation might begin. The remarks followed an ABC News report on Thursday that the US military and the Israel Defence Forces had drawn up options for renewed joint strikes. The report cited two Israeli sources familiar with the plans, who said the strikes would most likely take place after the midterms. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly, however, told ABC News that “the United States will not be attacking Iran at any time prior to the midterm elections.” The reports indicate that further military action is being considered, but they do not establish that Trump has ordered an attack. Negotiations remain another possibility. Strategic choices and political pressure In an analysis published on October 23, James M. Lindsay, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, outlined three options for Trump: escalate the conflict, negotiate with Tehran or maintain the current position. “All three options have substantial downsides and a questionable likelihood of succeeding,” Lindsay wrote. Further attacks could increase pressure on Iran but might prolong the conflict without securing a political settlement. Negotiations would require the two sides to bridge their differences, while maintaining the current position could leave the conflict unresolved. Andrew Payne, research director for Europe, Russia and the Americas at Chatham House, argued in an October 15 analysis that foreign policy could play an unusual role in this year’s midterm elections. The war’s economic consequences could influence voters who might otherwise focus primarily on domestic issues, particularly the cost of living. Public opinion turns against the war A Pew Research Centre survey conducted from September 28 to October 4 among 5,062 US adults found that 65 per cent disapproved of Trump’s handling of the military action against Iran, while 33pc approved. The survey also found that 73pc were extremely or very concerned about higher fuel prices, and 71pc about American troops being wounded or killed. Nearly half, 47pc, expected the military action to continue for more than another year. A separate Associated Press-NORC poll published on October 22 found that roughly seven in 10 registered voters wanted the next Congress to make ending the Iran war a top priority. About eight in 10 gave similar priority to reducing the cost of living. The poll surveyed 1,119 US adults from October 8 to 12. The findings point to pressure on the administration to address the war’s duration and economic consequences. However, dissatisfaction with Trump’s handling of the conflict does not necessarily mean that voters would oppose every possible military operation. Can Congress restrain Trump? Congress can scrutinise military operations, hold oversight hearings and use its control over federal spending to influence the course of the war. Lawmakers can also invoke the War Powers Resolution to challenge military action. The resolution requires the president to notify Congress in certain circumstances when US forces enter hostilities. It also establishes procedures for lawmakers to consider whether military action should continue. Funding could become particularly important if the conflict expands. Congress can approve, restrict or condition spending for military operations, potentially increasing the political cost of a prolonged campaign. The extent of congressional pressure would depend partly on whether Republicans remain united behind Trump. If some Republican lawmakers join Democrats in challenging the war, the administration could face greater scrutiny of its objectives and plans for ending the conflict. Even a congressional challenge, however, would not automatically prevent the president from ordering another strike. The question after November 3 The immediate question is whether Trump will maintain his stated position against attacking Iran before the midterms. The larger issue is whether the election results will alter the political constraints on his decisions. The reported military planning and Trump’s latest remarks keep the prospect of renewed strikes alive, but neither establishes that an attack has been scheduled. A change in control of either chamber of Congress could affect oversight and funding debates, although it would not automatically prevent further military action. Whether the combined pressures of public dissatisfaction, economic concerns and congressional scrutiny lead Trump towards negotiations or renewed strikes remains unclear.