Trump weighs military action on Iran, while legislators question the powers of the war

president Donald Trump White House officials said on Thursday, when they were days of extreme speculation about the president’s plan in the region-and to make a decision within two weeks.

Trump has spent most of the week to reflect on the possibility of the United States to directly involve the United States in the Iranian -Israeli conflict, as the two countries continued to carry out deadly strikes against each other. As the week continued, Trump continued to separate from the attempts of cabinet officials, including Foreign Minister Marco Rubio, who tried to stay away from the role that the United States played in helping Israel.

Trump to caution On social media on Wednesday, the United States has “full and comprehensive control over the sky on Iran”, and demanded “an unconstitutional surrender” from Iran.

He also repeatedly refused to exclude the possibility of a direct strike on Iran. “I may do it,” he told reporters. “I mean, no one knows what I will do,” he said.

Trump to make Iran’s decision “within the next two weeks” gave “opportunity” to negotiations, Levit says

This statement explains, more than anything else, the central question that raises many of Washington this week, as Trump continues to adhere to the consultants for meetings in the position room, including at least one meeting as it agreed to the attack plans against Tehran, if they failed to end their nuclear program, as requested by the administration. (The news of this meeting was first reported by the Wall Street Journal).

White House press secretary Caroline Levit refused to clarify the nature of the American -Iranian conversations on Thursday, as it only told reporters that Trump was planning to make a decision on how to move forward within a period of two weeks.

Meanwhile, the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khandini, rejected negotiations with the United States on Wednesday, warning that if Iran attacked the United States “undoubtedly, it will face irreparable harm.”

Here is what we know about Trump’s options, if he chooses to order us a strike in Iran – legal risks and others, the United States can face as a result.

War authorities ’decision

Trump was weighing the US order to strike against Iran, including the possibility of targeting the country’s nuclear enrichment facility in Fordo, a major nuclear facility located south of Tehran.

But while Trump gathered with his consultants at the White House, legislators were progressing on the other side of Pennsylvania Street for their closed meetings.

Trump’s comments did only a few escalating fears of escalation in the Middle East – both from some of the Maga supporters, who gathered about his promises to end “wars forever”, and Democrats, who fear revenge that the attack will bring it.

Actor Thomas Massi, RK, WRO Khanna, Mid California, has announced new legislation from the two parties this week, which will require Trump to obtain the approval of Congress before signing any useful participation with Iran, such as offensive strikes on its nuclear facilities.

The draft law attracted support for a strange coalition of legislators from the two parties, including Trump supporters who oppose US participation in more foreign wars and Democrats, including MP Alexandria Okasio-Customs, Dean.

These legislators argue that Trump, in the disposal of one side, will violate the permanent laws of the United States – that is, the restrictions mentioned in the decision of the war authorities, or the law issued by Congress in 1973 with the aim of writing down cases in which the president can allow the use of force in foreign conflicts without official announcement.

“Emphasions for Self -Control”: The Senate is divided around who will declare war

“The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war,” Massi said in the announcement of the draft law. “Even if so, Congress must decide such matters according to our constitution.”

But in the decades that have passed since the law was passed, the presidents expanded their powers here in the absence of a large license of Congress, including during the era of both Democratic and Republican presidents. This was somewhat reflected by the Office of the Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Justice, which took a broader view of the second authorities granted to the presidents when the force begins to use – especially when the “national interest” is doing so.

These wider forces were used by Republican presidents, and during the departments of Obama and Biden, officials told Fox News Digital.

Michael Robin, an older colleague at the American Projects Institute, confirmed in an interview with Fox News.

He said in an interview on Thursday, “There are many precedents of presidents who ignore the technical aspects of the war.

Ultimately, Robin said, “The president has the ability to act without it for a specific period of time. Therefore (the law) does not really apply if we will go to a large operation instead of bombing one time.”

“The fact that the worst option for American security is to allow Iran to reshape its program because of what he was buried in Ford,” said Robin, a former Pentagon official, who focuses his work in AEI to a large extent on issues in the Middle East.

Fears of escalation

Meanwhile, Trump’s threats have sparked fears from some critics, who see his statements are dangerous and perhaps likely to be possible from possible from Tehran.

Critics have suggested that they can endanger American officials abroad, including those within the scope of the strike in Iran.

“It should be in the White House’s interest to use the leverage to stop the fighting,” said Brian Venocan, the chief adviser to the International Crisis Group.

“The United States helps Israel in missile defense at the present time,” he said. He said the defense “is to stop the fighting.”

International law

There are also fears that the United States will act in a violation of international law, including the United Nations Charter “prohibits a threat or use force except in some limited circumstances, such as self -defense,” according to White paper It was published in 2019 by only security.

In this position, critics say the United States does not have an excuse to declare a strike against Iran.

“I don’t think there is any reason for the reasonable self -defense to take US military measures against Iran,” said Brian Venocan, the first adviser to the International Crisis Group, in an interview.

“Therefore, any American military action against Iran would violate the United Nations Charter, and thus violates the president’s duty to the constitution that laws be executed sincerely,” he said.

Others took the hill and beyond a more supportive situation as Trump weighs his next steps.

Speaking in an interview on Thursday morning on “Fox & Friends”, Senator John Pararaso, R-WYO, praised Trump’s work so far in the region, saying that Trump “does the right thing completely to keep America safe.”

“It was very fixed for 10 years, saying that Iran could not be allowed to a nuclear weapon,” Pararaso said. “He said that strongly. He read it over and over because he knows that Iran with a nuclear weapon pose a threat to the people of the United States. We are standing with the people of Israel.”

Senator Lindsey Graham was among the most supporters in Trump, and said in the interviews earlier this week he believed that Trump had a desire to “end the mission” to destroy Ford.

“I do not think that Israel can end from Ford without helping us, and it is in our interest to ensure that this program is destroyed, as much as Israel,” He said In an interview.

“If there is something you need to do to help Israel, do it,” he said.

Robin, a fellow AEI, sought to distinguish Trump’s actions from other presidents who participated in long foreign conflicts.

“The issue with Iran is that we are not intertwined in the United States in the war,” Robin said. “We seize the opportunity to end the crisis once and for all. It seems one deal.”

The following steps

However, it is not clear what is Trump’s final game, if Iran chooses Iran.

Fenocan, adviser to the International Crisis Group, who previously spent a decade at the Office of the Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said.

“The constitution is very deliberate, it gives the authority to declare war to Congress,” he said.

Click here to get the Fox News app

“He does so to make going to war strongly,” he said. He said: “It is necessary to make collective decisions and the previous public debate; circulation (from) the most dependent cost and benefits of the decision that the American government can make, in terms of blood and treasure.”

Therefore, if the United States wants to reduce the risk of clouds to an unnecessary war in the Middle East, and at least reduce the risks to people in the region, including Americans in the region, should be in the interest of the White House to put an end to fighting – whether he wants to participate, “