Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). Donald Trump has a problem that is likely to cause him far more concern than Iran’s resistance, namely the resistance in Congress. With their victory in the House of Representatives vote on 3 June, the Democrats aim to rein in Trump regarding his war against Iran.
After the first 100 days of a war that a US president has started without the consent of the US Congress, the latter has the option, under the ‘War Powers Resolution’, to stop the war, provided both houses of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) vote by a majority against its continuation. In this case, the President is required to withdraw all US troops from unauthorised hostilities within 60 days, with a possible 30-day extension to ensure a safe withdrawal.
On Wednesday 3 June, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution to this effect by 215 votes to 208, which would force the President to either end military operations against Iran or seek explicit authorisation from Congress. Four Republicans voted alongside the Democrats – a remarkable development in a party that has so far acted more as a “Trump fan club” than as an independent political force, noted the British news agency Reuters.
The crucial question now is: is this merely symbolic theatre or the beginning of a genuine shift in power? The answer probably lies somewhere in between. For the resolution would first have to pass the Senate. Several Republican senators there have already signalled that they view Trump’s Iran policy with scepticism. However, a majority is by no means guaranteed. And even if the Senate approves it, Trump can veto it. Overriding that veto, however, would require two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, which is currently considered virtually impossible, according to a report in the New York Post. From a legal perspective, therefore, Trump is by no means shackled.
Politically, however, the situation looks different. The real significance of the vote lies in the fact that, for the first time, an opposition to the war in Iran, supported by Republican dissidents, has become visible in Congress. After months of rising energy prices, growing war-weariness among the public and an increasingly chaotic Middle East policy, even loyal Republicans are wondering whether the President still knows where – or if there is even an exit – on this motorway leading into a new, major, endless war.
For Trump’s future Iran policy, this must mean one thing above all: caution. Consequently, Trump is likely to rely much more heavily on negotiations in future than on further military escalations; not for pacifist reasons – Trump has always merely played that role – but because an open war against Iran would have increasingly toxic domestic political consequences. If, on top of that, the assessment were to gain traction that Iran does indeed possess a nuclear deterrent, then the pressure on the White House would continue to mount.
In other words: the likelihood of a major American ground war against Iran is decreasing, regardless of whether Iran’s nuclear deterrent is merely feigned or genuine. At the same time, this increases the likelihood of a US-Iranian deal, which will not please Trump’s Israeli accomplices in this criminal war of aggression against Iran in the slightest.
And this is precisely where Trump’s next problem lies. According to reports from Israel, the vote in the US House of Representatives is said to have been received as a warning signal. The Israeli government has based its entire strategic calculation on the assumption that Washington will not only defeat Iran, but will ultimately always be prepared to exert military pressure on the fragmented remnants of Iran that Netanyahu hopes to see.
Netanyahu has repeated like a mantra in recent months that Iran must never be given the opportunity to rebuild its nuclear programme. Defence Minister Israel Katz recently warned that any resumption of Iranian nuclear activities would trigger an Israeli response. The message is clear: for Israel, a lasting US compromise with Tehran is unacceptable. Consequently, critical voices regarding Trump’s change of course in recent days are increasingly dominating the Israeli media. There was a particularly irritated reaction to reports that Trump had sharply criticised Netanyahu internally and allegedly described him as “crazy”. Israeli commentators are now openly discussing whether Washington is seeking a separate peace with Iran, whilst Israel could be left to deal with the strategic consequences alone. This was reported by Al Jazeera.
This, in turn, carries the risk that an isolated Israel might be tempted to take its own military action using non-conventional means.
