June 19
By Olivier Knox
I’ve discussed questions about war powers – who decides whether, when and how young Americans are hurled into conflict – with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia for a decade, whether a Democrat like him or a Republican has held the White House.
With Israeli planes and drones pounding targets in Iran and talk of forcing “regime change” in Tehran, perhaps with help from Washington, Kaine has introduced a resolution effectively requiring the Senate to vote yay or nay on direct, offensive U.S. involvement against the Islamic Republic.
In parliamentary terms, the measure is “privileged,” meaning Republicans can’t just prevent it from ever going to the floor.
That doesn’t mean it’ll pass. The party that holds the presidency has historically resisted steps that might be seen as challenging the commander in chief’s authority.
It’s hardly academic. Vice President JD Vance said on social media that President Donald Trump “may decide to take further action to end Iranian enrichment” of uranium. “Further” than negotiations or helping Israel shoot down Iranian missiles or drones.
And Trump has publicly raised the possibility that U.S. forces might assassinate Iran’s supreme leader.
I caught up with Kaine by telephone Tuesday morning to discuss the resolution. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
What would your resolution do?
“The resolution states that the U.S. will not be at war with Iran unless there’s a vote of Congress that we should be at war with Iran. There’s an exception that is essentially a statement of Article 2 of the Constitution that the president, as commander in chief, always has the ability to defend against an attack without coming to Congress. But if it’s to be an offensive war, only Congress can authorize it.”
How would this affect U.S. roles like helping to defend Israel from Iranian missile attacks?
“We have been a backer of Israel’s self-defense. I’ve never voted against an Israel aid package in my entire time in the Senate. If it was just purely with Israel and defense, I’m not sure I would have filed this. But it’s the imminence of engagement and offensive possibilities that has led me to file this.”
You’ve done this enough that you know what the pushback will be: “What if we need to protect our troops and diplomats and citizens in places like Iraq or Qatar or Israel?” What do you say to that?
“If we need to protect Americans – and not just the homeland, but American soldiers deployed in Iraq or Syria or the American Consulate in Erbil – the president has the inherent power as commander in chief to defend American lives. We don’t need congressional authorization for that. But since the Constitution was drafted, the understanding has been, if we need to go on offense against another nation or a terrorist group, you need a congressional authorization.
“I’m just trying to get my colleagues to affirm that principle, no war without Congress except in self-defense. I personally believe that a war with Iran would be a horrible mistake. I think 20 years of war in the Middle East and the suffering in Virginia and all over this country, led by these two wars, tells me we should not be in another offensive war in the Middle East. But if we are to be in such a war, you know what? Let one of my colleagues introduce a declaration or an authorization. Let’s have a debate. Let’s have a vote for the American public like we’re supposed to. But let’s not slide into it by subtly encouraging the president to do this unilaterally with Congress kind of hiding in the tall grass.”
The rhetoric from President Trump and the White House has evolved over the last 48 hours – he called for people to evacuate Tehran, for instance. Vance just posted that Trump may decide to take “further action.” They’re redefining “endless wars” to mean “Iran’s actions since 1979.” Are you running out of time?
“This isn’t about me. I know what Virginians would think about this. They would be highly opposed to it. Iran does not pose a national security threat to the United States that would warrant us to be engaged in an offensive war against them. Am I running out of time? That’s why I filed this. I have colleagues who talk tough, but they would rather not vote tough.
“If you think we should be in a war with Iran: Introduce an authorization, and we will have a debate and vote on it. I know what the American public will think about that. They will think, ‘Are you kidding? Did you not learn anything from 20 years of unproductive wars in the Middle East? And you went to a third one?’”