Congressman Slams Trump’s Iran Strikes as ‘Illegal’ and ‘Unconstitutional’

Moulton Criticizes Unsanctioned Military Action Against Iran

WASHINGTON D.C. – In a sharp rebuke of the Trump administration’s recent military strikes on Iran, Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts has labeled the actions as “illegal,” “unauthorized,” and “unconstitutional.” Moulton, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a decorated Marine Corps officer with experience in Iraq, voiced his strong disapproval following President Trump’s overnight decision to authorize strikes, stating that the move puts “thousands of American lives at risk for results that we can’t even understand.” The White House confirmed that President Trump monitored the situation and spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu prior to the operation, while Secretary Rubio briefed seven of the eight members of the Gang of Eight intelligence committees.

Echoes of Iraq: Fears of Misinformation and Lack of Strategy

Drawing parallels to his own experiences in Iraq, Congressman Moulton expressed deep concern that the current situation mirrors the circumstances leading up to the 2003 invasion. “As someone who was on the ground in Iraq and felt like I was repeatedly lied to by the Bush administration about what we were doing there, why we were going to war, I have to imagine that there are a lot of troops in the Middle East asking those same questions today: What are we being told the truth about? And is this just another bunch of lies?” Moulton highlighted the significant presence of U.S. troops in the region, numbering in the “double-digit thousands,” and cautioned against viewing military engagements as “remote control video game wars.”

“Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not Iraq plus Afghanistan plus Venezuela. This is a massive 93 million person country that is heavily industrialized and fortified.”

Moulton recalled the initial underestimation of the Iraq War, which was anticipated to be a swift conflict akin to the Persian Gulf War but devolved into a protracted and costly engagement. He identified two fundamental problems with the Iraq War: its foundation on a “lie about nuclear weapons” and the absence of a “plan for the day after.” He argued that the current administration’s approach to Iran echoes these same critical failures.

Critique of Trump’s Iran Policy: Broken Deals and Empowered Regime

The congressman directly challenged President Trump’s narrative on Iran’s nuclear program, pointing out the irony of striking Iran’s nuclear facilities when Trump “completely lied about obliterating Iran’s nuclear weapons program, because here we are attacking it just months later.” Moulton further criticized the lack of a post-strike plan, describing the administration’s call for citizens to “protest and overthrow your regime” as “bombs and bluster is not a strategy.”

Moulton also detailed a history of perceived policy missteps by the Trump administration regarding Iran:

• Withdrawal from the JCPOA: Moulton asserted that Trump had a deal in place that “unequivocally said Iran can never develop a nuclear weapon” but “tore it up.” This action, he argued, not only undermined diplomatic efforts but also led to the loss of vital oversight. “We lost our eyes on the Iranian nuclear program. We used to have inspectors, cameras keeping an eye on exactly what they were doing.”
• Inconsistent Stance on Protests: He noted Trump’s public encouragement of Iranian protesters, including statements like “we’ve got your back” and “go and take control of your government,” while questioning the administration’s commitment to intervening when the Iranian regime was “killing its own people.”
• Misallocation of Military Assets: Moulton cited the deployment of an “armada” to Venezuela, a region he deemed not in the U.S. national security interest, instead of using such assets to deter the Iranian regime’s actions against its own population.

Constitutional Concerns and Congressional Oversight

A significant point of contention for Moulton is the apparent circumvention of Congress. He referenced the ongoing efforts by Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie to bring a resolution to the floor that would require explicit congressional approval for any war with Iran, utilizing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as a basis for broader interpretations of military action.

“Technically, constitutionally, they shouldn’t have to do that,” Moulton acknowledged regarding the need for explicit approval, “but where does that process stand?” He expressed dismay that a vote on this critical resolution is not expected until the following week, suggesting that the timing of the strikes may have been calculated to preempt congressional action. “You have to wonder whether Trump chose today as a day to start his attack because he knew that we might actually vote in Congress to fulfill our constitutional obligation to the Constitution and to the American people to decide whether we go to war next week.”

The congressman concluded by emphasizing his belief that President Trump “did not care to get the permission of the American people, get the permission of Congress.” He stated, “The only person he seemed to care about was Netanyahu. Netanyahu supports these attacks, and he obviously went to Netanyahu even though we hadn’t gone to Congress or the American people.”

Looking Ahead: Congressional Action and Regional Stability

The coming week will be critical as Congress grapples with the implications of the strikes and the potential need for a formal declaration of war. The debate over the use of the 2001 AUMF and the administration’s interpretation of its authority is likely to intensify. As the situation in the Middle East remains volatile, lawmakers and the public will be closely watching for any further escalation and demanding greater clarity on the strategy and objectives behind these potentially consequential military actions.

Source: 'The president is putting thousands of lives at risk': Rep. Seth Moulton on strikes on Iran (YouTube)