United States lawmakers divided over Donald Trump Iran argument, set war powers vote


The debate on presidential war powers resurfaced this week after Tehran fired more than 20 ballistic missiles into Iraq, targeting two military facilities that house American troops.

The Revolutionary Guards Aerospace Commander also said that Iran did not seek to kill anyone in the operation but at the same time repeated unsubstantiated claims about American casualties saying "tens were obviously killed or wounded".

"The fact that we have this great military and equipment does not mean we have to use it".

"NATO has a significant role in the training mission that we're moving forward with-but there are always going to be more reflections on what are the next steps to take, given the current circumstances", he said.

China says the unilateral withdrawal in 2018 of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known widely as the Iran nuclear deal, is the root cause of the rising tensions on Iran nuclear issue.

Trump's speech "left the door open" to a diplomatic solution with Iran, Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, told RFE/RL.

"This decision was not taken lightly", U.S. Ambassador Kelly Craft said at the United Nations.

Presented with a list of possible actions, and asked whether they would approve, 64 percent said they backed the USA killing terror group leaders, and half backed attacks against "foreign military officers of opposing governments who have ties to known terrorist organizations".

According to the Iranian state TV, the missile attacks by Iran on Wednesday were in revenge for the killing of General Soleimani. It came under missile attack from Iran late Tuesday, along with another base near Baghdad. "Our leaders should act", said Saif, a 33-year-old protester speaking on condition his full name not be used for fear of reprisals. "So they're looking at that".

Oil prices tumbled about 5 percent following Trump's speech amid optimism that war is off the table for the time being. "America and the world can not afford war".

"The president's speech this morning suggested that there is no policy shift".

The intention had not been to kill any U.S. troops, he said, but the operation could have been planned in such a way that as many as 500 died in the first stage, and more if the United States had responded.

The statement clarified that "shortly after midnight on Wednesday 8/1/2020, we received an official verbal message by the Islamic Republic of Iran, informing us that the Iranian response to the assassination of the martyr Qassem Soleimani had begun or would start soon".

He justified the assassination of Soleimani during his speech, saying the military commander was "threatening American lives". It's not just Democratic lawmakers who are agitated over President Trump's seemingly reckless lurch towards a confrontation with Iran that began with the scrapping of the Obama-engineered and Europe-support nuclear deal with Teheran.

Democrats were not the only ones skeptical of the administration's justification. Sen.

"This appears to be a strike of choice by this administration", Senator Chris Murphy told reporters following the meeting. After all, the alternative was a possible war with catastrophic consequences.

It's always wise to preface articles like these by noting that any dissent against Trump within the Republican ranks usually ends the same way: With the dissenters completely caving, oftentimes in the most craven way imaginable, while never taking any meaningful action against Trump, even in their votes, before the inevitable capitulation.

It was reached by Iran and six nations, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States - as well as Germany.