War Powers Leave Iran Campaign in Trump's Hands

The United States has blockaded Iranian ports while helping commercial vessels pass through the Strait of Hormuz. The strategy has increased Gulf oil flows and imposed growing economic costs on Iran. In response, Iran has escalated attacks on commercial shipping to raise energy prices, punish American consumers and weaken President Trump and the Republican Party before the November 3 midterm elections, according to Brett McGurk, a CNN global affairs analyst and former senior national security official.

McGurk wrote that a change in control of Congress wouldn’t necessarily constrain the war. Trump will remain commander in chief for another two years, and the White House will still make the most consequential decisions on Iran, he said.

Congressional limits

Congress controls military spending and decisions on war and peace, but a president can veto legislation restricting military operations. Congress needs a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto. McGurk wrote that even a Democratic wave election would almost certainly fall short, and legislators are reluctant to cut funding for U.S. forces already in harm’s way.

The 2006 midterms showed how voters’ opposition to a war can diverge from a president’s power to continue it. Democrats swept both houses, largely because of public opposition to the Iraq War. President George W. Bush called the result a “thumping.” On January 10, 2007, he announced a surge of tens of thousands of additional troops.

Sen. Dick Durbin said, “Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election.” Sen. Barack Obama pledged to “actively oppose the president’s proposal.” After watching the reactions, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told McGurk, “This’ll be a fight.” Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel called the surge “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

Bush fired his secretary of defense, appointed new generals and a new ambassador to Iraq, and approved the escalation. Congress later sought withdrawal timetables and funding cuts for U.S. troops. Bush vetoed those measures, and Congress lacked the votes to override him. McGurk wrote that Congress wasn’t in the chain of command: the commander in chief determined the course of an ongoing war.

Shipping, energy and pressure

The current U.S. blockade has helped increase Gulf oil flows. Iran continues to threaten ships and regional infrastructure, while imposing costs on those using the strait. McGurk described the result as close to a stalemate: Iran can no longer close the Strait of Hormuz, but it can still threaten commercial traffic. The United States expects the economic blockade to force Iran to make concessions at the negotiating table, including on its nuclear program. Both sides appear to believe time is on their side.

A Washington Post report published Monday said Iranian officials were escalating attacks on commercial shipping to affect energy prices and the U.S. election. An Arab diplomat described Tehran as “obsessed” with the elections. Iranian state television has tracked Trump’s approval ratings and speculated that Republican losses would constrain the war and force U.S. concessions.

McGurk cited earlier cases in which presidents pursued military operations despite congressional opposition or a lack of approval. Nixon escalated the war in Vietnam in 1972 while Democrats held majorities in both houses. The House refused to authorize Clinton’s 78-day NATO air campaign in the Balkans in 1999, and Obama launched extended military operations in Libya in 2011 without congressional approval.

Three paths for the White House

McGurk described three options for Trump: pull back and accept an accommodation with Iran to restore normal shipping; maintain the current strategy and answer Iranian attacks with strikes; or expand the campaign. A pullback could bring near-term political and economic benefits if energy prices declined, but Iran could claim victory and rebuild its nuclear and missile program, he wrote.

Under the current approach, the United States is relying on the blockade to press Iran in negotiations. Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. military forces in the region, previewed a more forceful response in September: “If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher cost – taking out three of yours.” McGurk wrote that Iran could escalate in response and widen the conflict.

An expanded campaign could involve Israel and Iran’s regional partners, including greater U.S. support for Saudi Arabia against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. Trump could also seek an Israeli-Saudi agreement and expansion of the Abraham Accords. McGurk wrote that Saudi Arabia would need new security assurances from Washington, while Israel would face decisions on Gaza and the “pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” established in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2803.

McGurk said Democratic majorities could complicate Trump’s position through investigations, hearings and efforts to restrict military operations. But the president would remain commander in chief, and Congress’s ability to change the war’s course would depend on powers a determined president can resist.