Lawmakers Have No Idea What’s Next on Iran

As the U.S. builds up its military force near Iran, a familiar script is playing out on Capitol Hill.

Democrats fear the White House could bypass Congress. Republicans are eager to take a tough posture. And senators in both parties said they’re lacking clear information from the White House.

“You have to take it seriously,” Sen. Tim Kaine told NOTUS on Tuesday when asked whether the situation in Iran is starting to resemble what happened in Venezuela. He pointed to reports that President Donald Trump is considering using U.S. forces on the ground.

“Some people said he wasn’t going to do that in Venezuela, and he did,” Kaine said. “So I think you can’t dismiss it out of hand.”

Democrats warned for months that the U.S. military buildup near Venezuela could turn into action without Congress signing off. Then the Trump administration carried out an operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, prompting a short-lived fight among Senate Republicans over the president’s war powers.

Pressure around Iran is now mounting quickly.

Plans for U.S.-Iran nuclear talks set for Friday are collapsing after the U.S. rejected Iran’s demand to change the location and format, Axios reported. At the same time, military tensions have spiked. The U.S. shot down an Iranian drone that approached the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the U.S. military said Iranian boats harassed a U.S.-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz before a U.S. warship escorted it away.

“If the Iranians want to meet, we’re ready,” Secretary Marco Rubio said Wednesday. “I’m not sure you can reach a deal with these guys, but we’re going to try to find out.”

Robert Malley, a former senior State Department official and a lead U.S. negotiator on the Iran nuclear deal during the Obama administration, said in an interview that no one should pretend the path ahead is clear.

“I think anyone who says they know doesn’t know,” Malley said. The buildup and Trump’s threats make strikes “a real possibility,” he added, but talks could still happen.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if they started negotiating,” Malley said, “and I would not be surprised if the U.S. would just strike Iran.”

The latest escalation follows the deadly crackdown on nationwide protests in Iran last month, after which Trump warned Tehran the U.S. could act, before the pressure campaign pivoted toward nuclear demands and talks. A strike in Iran would not be unprecedented. In June, the U.S. struck three Iranian sites as part of a military operation to set back Tehran’s nuclear program.

In recent days, officials say Trump has been weighing an expanded menu of military options, including strikes on nuclear and missile sites and even potential raids inside Iran.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties said they feel like they’re in the dark.

“I’m trying to figure out what the strategy is,” Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Service Committee, said Tuesday. “We have military forces in place, significant forces. I don’t think it’s quite clear yet what we’re trying to do.”

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said Wednesday that he had not been briefed on the intelligence.

“I don’t know. I haven’t been briefed on any of the intel,” he said.

Some Republicans said they are open to force. Sen. John Cornyn said he would back Trump striking Iran “if he thinks that’s the right choice.” Sen. Mike Rounds said “if a preemptive strike is necessary, so be it.”

“I don’t think we should take anything off the table,” Sen. Rick Scott said.

The uncertainty over what’s next is feeding a renewed debate over Congress’s role if Trump moves from pressure to force.

Kaine and Sen. Rand Paul, who also teamed up on a war powers push during the Venezuela standoff, introduced a new resolution to block unauthorized military action against Iran and are expected to force a vote next week. Kaine said many of his constituents do not want their children “pulled into another Middle East war.”

Some Republicans agree that any “sustained” military action may need congressional authorization, even while backing a tougher posture.

Tillis said the president could act in an immediate situation, but that “sustained” military action would require congressional approval under the War Powers Act.

Sen. Todd Young — who backed a measure to limit the president’s war powers on Venezuela before reversing course — struck a similar note, calling war powers “one of the most nuanced areas of law” and stressing that in certain cases Congress must authorize the use of force, even as the president retains commander-in-chief authority.

Even if the politics on Capitol Hill feel familiar, some say Iran may not behave anything like Venezuela.

Sen. Chris Coons said Trump has shown a willingness to use force, but stressed that Iran is a tougher target, in part because “it is a lot harder to penetrate the IRGC.”

Malley said that other than Trump’s involvement, the situations in Iran and Venezuela are very different.

He said Trump may believe he achieved “minimal risk” and “maximum gain” in Venezuela and may think he can repeat that in Iran.

“But can they engineer a regime change from afar through military strikes?” Malley asked. “I think the answer is clearly no.”

Iran also has tools Venezuela did not, Malley said. Tehran could threaten oil traffic through the Gulf, strike U.S. bases or hit American partners in the region.

If Washington launches a serious attack, he added, “I’m quite certain that Iran will respond.”