President Trump is assessing the geopolitical landscape, considering the introduction of American resources into a rapidly changing Middle East. The notion is certainly a complex one, with implications cut across different scopes. Legislative authorities also have a role to play in this evolving picture, and should coordinate closely with the President to form a comprehensive strategy.
While President Trump has yet to pledge any formal military support to the ongoing Israeli air campaign in the region, the seasoned leader leaves all options open. Recently he proposed Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender’, indicating a strong counter to any potential hostilities. He even suggested in his characteristic bold style, the ultimate option of eliminating Iran’s supreme figurehead, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
As a part of this evolving dynamic, the Pentagon has been strategically mobilizing some resources closer to the theaters under consideration. This includes the deployment of ships and aircraft in areas proximate to the Middle East. These moves are designed to provide President Trump with a varied assortment of possible actions, should he choose to support the ongoing conflict in a more direct manner.
Maintaining a strong alliance with Israel remains a priority for the United States, with a suite of non-aggressive supports already being undertaken. For instance, the US is aiding in the defense against Iran’s drone and missile attacks. The application of military might isn’t the only tool in the shed, and Trump’s administration acknowledges this, lending assistance in forms befitting a nation not currently at war.
Despite the ongoing tensions, it should be remembered that it is the constitutional authority of Congress to make formal declarations of war. This is a principle that has been aside in recent times, with the White House being granted wide-ranging abilities to employ military forces as part of global counter-terrorism efforts.
Thus, as President Trump continues to weigh the option of joining Israel in their current struggle, it is important for lawmakers to step up, reaffirm their constitutional responsibility, and make their stand known. Should the occasion call for it, they would then be on record either supporting or opposing the decision to involve American troops in another Middle Eastern conflict.
Since the significant incidents taking place on September 11, 2001, sitting presidents have relied heavily on extant legal permissions from Congress to place military forces in combat situations in numerous countries. Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, otherwise known as the A.U.M.F., facilitating the deployment of troops in times of perceived threats.
This legislative move was employed by President George W. Bush in response to the attack, setting the military sights on Afghanistan. It found its application yet again in 2002 with another Congressional approval of the A.U.M.F., this time for deploying troops to Iraq.
Subsequent use of these authorizations by President Obama led to the expansion of drone warfare in other regions, including Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. In all instances, executive decisions on deployment and use of military assets were done unilaterally. Though approved by Congress, some of these decisions were made decades later, straying from their original intent.
Traditionally, the President under our constitutional configuration has the power to direct the military, but only after a formal declaration of war by Congress. However, it has been a long while since such official declarations were made. The last one, in fact, dates back to World War II, in 1942.
The role of Congress in times of potential conflict has shifted subtly over the years. The reliance on flexible authorizations like the A.U.M.F. means that consent from Congress on specific military actions is often sought long after the initial authorization.
Indeed, it highlights our payment in blood and treasure in multiple theaters of operation, all without the traditional declaration of war. It’s worthy of note that the legislative body has much more to do towards the preservation of the peace, and by extension, American lives and resources on these foreign fields.
The geopolitics in this day and age demand a substantial amount of strategic thinking and planning to ensure national security and maintain strong international relations. President Trump’s approach in this regard is certainly commendable, with all options kept on the table and decisions made with America’s best interests at the forefront.
Whether formally joining Israel in their Middle East operations or simply extending non-aggressive supports, it’s vital that the Trump administration and Congress work together to craft strategies that align with the mandate of the people, respect international laws, and uphold the American constitution. The ultimate goal, of course, is to act in the best interests of the United States, its citizenry, and its global allies.