Midterms May Not Curb Trump's Iran War

Brett McGurk says a change in Congress after the November 3 midterm elections wouldn’t necessarily constrain President Trump’s decisions on the war with Iran. Trump would remain commander in chief for another two years, McGurk wrote, and the White House would still make the most consequential choices on Iran.

McGurk, a CNN global affairs analyst who served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, compared the situation with Bush’s 2007 decision to send additional troops to Iraq. He argues that congressional opposition can complicate a president’s position without necessarily changing how an ongoing war is conducted.

Congressional power and its limits

Congress controls military spending and war and peace, McGurk wrote, but forcing a determined president to change course is another matter. A president can veto legislation restricting military operations, and Congress needs a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto. Even if Democrats win a wave election in November, McGurk wrote, they’ll almost certainly fall short of that threshold. Legislators are also reluctant to cut off funding for U.S. forces already in harm’s way.

McGurk pointed to Bush’s decision after Democrats swept both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, an outcome Bush called a “thumping” driven largely by opposition to the Iraq War. On January 10, 2007, Bush announced a surge of tens of thousands of additional troops. McGurk watched the response from National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley’s West Wing office. 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,” and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel called the surge “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

Bush vetoed congressional measures seeking to reverse the surge through withdrawal timetables and funding cuts; Congress didn’t have the votes to override him. McGurk wrote that the surge reduced violence and stabilized Iraq, giving the country a chance to survive.

Iran and the election

Iran apparently believes the midterms will affect its fortunes in the war, McGurk wrote. A Washington Post report published Monday said Iranian officials were escalating attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz to raise energy prices, punish American consumers and weaken Trump and the Republican Party before the 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.

Presidents have pursued military action despite congressional opposition before. McGurk cited Nixon’s escalation of the war in Vietnam in 1972 while Democrats held majorities in both houses; Clinton’s 78-day NATO air campaign in the Balkans in 1999 after the House refused to authorize it; and Obama’s extended military operations in Libya in 2011 without congressional approval. Democratic majorities could bring investigations, hearings and efforts to restrict operations, McGurk wrote, but they couldn’t remove Trump as commander in chief.

Three possible courses

McGurk outlined three broad options. Trump could reduce operations, declare the principal military objectives achieved and accept an accommodation with Iran to restore normal shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. That could bring near-term political and economic benefits, particularly if energy prices fell. But Iran could claim victory and rebuild its nuclear and missile programs, McGurk wrote. He said Trump’s decision to maintain the blockade despite its political costs made a sudden retreat after the midterms unlikely.

A second option is to maintain the current strategy: the United States has blockaded Iranian ports while helping commercial vessels transit the strait. The strategy has increased Gulf oil flows and imposed economic costs on Iran, but McGurk described the result as close to a stalemate. Iran continues to threaten ships and regional infrastructure, while the United States expects economic pressure to bring concessions at the negotiating table, including on Iran’s nuclear program.

A third course would expand the campaign, potentially with Israel against Iran and its regional partners, and include greater support for Saudi Arabia against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. Trump could also seek an Israeli-Saudi agreement and expand the Abraham Accords. McGurk said such a deal remained possible, but Saudi Arabia would need new security assurances from Washington, while Israel would face decisions over Gaza and the “pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” established in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2803.

McGurk wrote that he would advise maintaining economic pressure, responding more forcefully to Iranian military attacks and preserving a path to a negotiated settlement. “Presidents make the final decisions, not their advisers,” he wrote. The midterms may weaken Trump politically, McGurk said, but they could also leave him more determined to settle the conflict on his terms.