Trump weighs military actions against Iran on legal issues

president Donald Trump White House officials said Thursday that they are considering whether to order us to order Iran in Iran and will make a decision within two weeks to limit strong speculation about the region’s presidential plan and trigger new fears about escalation, retaliation and long-term involvement in another external conflict.

Trump spent much of the week publicly citing the prospect of bringing the U.S. to more directly participate in the Israeli-Iran conflict as the two countries continue to strike deadly on each other. As the week progressed, Trump continued to carry his cabinet officials with him, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who tried to distance the role the United States played in helping Israel.

trump card warn On social media on Wednesday, the United States “fully controlled the sky in Iran” and demanded an “unconstitutional surrender” to Iran.

He also repeatedly refused to rule out the prospect of a direct strike against Iran. “I might do it,” he told reporters Wednesday. “I mean, no one knows what I’m going to do.”

This statement is more evident than anyone else’s central issues in much of Washington this week as Trump continues to attend the Situation Room meetings with advisers, including at least one meeting, and he reportedly approved a plan of attacks against Tehran, which, if they fail to terminate their nuclear program, is as requested by the administration. (News from the conference were first reported by the Wall Street Journal.)

Levitt said Trump is going to make Iran’s decision “in the next two weeks.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to elaborate on Thursday the nature of the U.S.-Iran talks, telling reporters only that Trump plans to make a decision within a two-week period.

Meanwhile, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei refused negotiations with the United States on Wednesday, warning that the United States would undoubtedly face irreparable harm if it attacked Iran. ”

This is what we know about Trump’s choice, and if he chooses to order our strike against Iran – legal and other risks that the United States may encounter.

War power resolution

Trump has been weighing the possibility of ordering the U.S. to strike on Iran, including targeting its nuclear enrichment facility in Fordow, a major nuclear facility in southern Tehran.

But despite Trump huddling with White House advisers, lawmakers have been calling their own closed-door meetings on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Trump’s rhetoric has barely brought more and more fears about the Middle East, from some Maga supporters who revolve around a promise to end the “forever war” and Democrats who fear offensiveness will bring revenge.

R-Ky. Rep. Thomas Massie and D-Calif. Ro Khanna announced new bipartisan legislation this week that would require Trump to obtain Congressional approval, such as an offensive strike against his nuclear facilities, before signing any meaningful engagement in Iran.

The bill attracted support from a peculiar coalition of bipartisan lawmakers, including Trump supporters who opposed the U.S. involvement in more foreign wars, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, including DN.Y.

Those members of the congressional view that Trump would violate U.S. law when acting unilaterally, i.e., the limitations enumerated in the settlement of war powers or laws passed by Congress in 1973 were intended to enable the president to authorize instances of force in foreign conflicts without the need for formal war.

“Constraint Instinct”: Who declares war when the Senate splits

“The war between Israel and Iran is not our war,” Masi said in announcing the bill. “Even if it is, Congress must decide such matters under our constitution.”

But the president has expanded here for the decades since the law was passed, including the rule of the Democratic and Republican presidents. The Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice reflects this to some extent, which gives a broader view of the second power granted to the President when it initiates the use of force, especially after it is in the “national interest.”

Officials told Fox News numbers that both the Republican president and the Biden administration have used these broader powers.

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American College of Enterprise, emphasized this in an interview with Fox News.

“The president has a lot of precedents that he overlooks,” he said in an interview Thursday.

Ultimately, Rubin said, the president “has the ability to act without action for a fixed period of time. So (the law) really only applies if we are going to do a major action rather than a one-time bombing.”

“The fact is, the worst option for U.S. security is to allow Iran to rebuild its plan because it buried it in Fordow.” Rubin, a former Pentagon official, whose work at AEI focuses primarily on the Middle East.

Worry about upgrading

However, during this period, Trump’s threat has attracted the attention of some critics who believe his remarks are both dangerous and potentially flooded, which could be retaliation against Tehran.

Critics suggest they could also endanger U.S. officials stationed overseas, including those within the Iran strike.

“Using U.S. leverage to stop the fight is a White House interest,” Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at International Crisis Group, told Fox News in an interview.

“The United States is now providing missile defense for Israel,” he said, and the defense business “is to stop fighting.”

international law

Also concerned that the United States may violate international law, including “the UN Charter that prohibits or uses of force unless in certain limited circumstances, such as self-defense, force” white paper Just Security was released in 2019.

In this case, critics say the United States has no excuse to authorize strikes against Iran.

“I don’t think there is any reasonable self-defense argument for military operations against Iran,” Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to International Crisis Group, told Fox News in an interview.

“As a result, any military action against Iran will violate the UN Charter and therefore violate the responsibility of the President’s Constitution, and be careful to implement the law faithfully,” he said.

When Trump weighed the next step, others on the mountain and beyond took a more supportive posture.

On Thursday morning, R-Wyo’s Senator John Barrasso spoke in a Thursday morning interview with Fox and Friends, praising Trump’s actions in the region so far, saying Trump “has done absolutely right things while ensuring the security of the United States.”

“He has been very stable for 10 years and said Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” Barraso said. “He said strongly. He read it over and over because he knew that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons was a threat to the American people. We stand with the Israeli people.”

Senator Lindsey Graham has been one of Trump’s most voiced supporters and said in an interview earlier this week that he believes Trump is eager to “get the job done” in the event of destroying Fordo.

“I don’t think that without our help, Israel cannot complete Fordo, and it is in our interest to make sure that the plan is destroyed like Israel,” he said. explain In the interview.

“So if you need to do something to help Israel, do it,” he said.

AEI researcher Rubin also tried to distinguish Trump’s actions from other presidents engaging in long foreign conflicts.

“The problem with Iran is that we won’t be entangled in the United States in the war,” Rubin said. “We take this opportunity to end the crisis once and for all. It seems like a deal.”

Next step

Still, it is unclear what Trump’s final game will be if he chooses to attack Iran.

Finucane, an advisor to the International Crisis Group, said the part was design, which he had spent ten years in the State Council’s Legal Counsel’s Office.

“The Constitution is very intentional and gives the power to declare war on Congress,” he said.

“This is done to make the war difficult,” he said. “It requires collective decision-making and prior public debate; (review) the costs and benefits of the most important decisions the U.S. government can make in terms of blood and wealth.”

Click here to get the Fox News app

So if the United States wants to minimize the risk of unnecessary war in the Middle East and minimize the risks for people including Americans, including Americans, that include Americans, then it should be in the interests of the White House, whether or not they want to participate in the fight-