Reporting by Axios, citing journalist Barak Ravid,
warns that the United States may be closer to a “massive,” weeks-long conflict
than most Americans understand. That phrase should trigger national debate.
Instead, Congress is on recess and public discourse remains oddly subdued.
Silence, in moments like this, is not neutrality — it is complicity.
America’s strength has never rested solely on military power
but on process: consultation with allies, engagement with the United Nations,
coordination within NATO, and authorization by the United States
Congress. The War Powers Act exists to prevent unilateral
escalations driven by impulse or political calculus.
Yet critics observe a troubling vacuum. Democratic leaders
such as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have raised procedural
objections, but where is the forceful challenge to the logic, risks, and
consequences of war itself? Procedural caution without substantive resistance
is an inadequate defense against catastrophe.
Columnist David French captured the absurdity: the
nation edges toward possible conflict while Congress appears disengaged and the
public largely unaware. Meanwhile, Trita Parsi of the Quincy
Institute for Responsible Statecraft warns of familiar patterns — media
narratives that amplify hawkish voices while sidelining restraint.
Public opinion tells a clearer story. A YouGov survey
shows significantly more Americans opposing military action against Iran than
supporting it. After Iraq and Afghanistan, skepticism is not isolationism — it
is wisdom earned at staggering cost.
President Trump, a war with Iran would not be surgical,
swift, or contained. It would ignite regional volatility, shock global markets,
and risk drawing America into another open-ended quagmire. History rarely
forgives leaders who confuse bravado with strategy.
Congress must act — not later, not symbolically, but now.
Debate openly. Assert authority. Because once the first strike is ordered, red
lines stop being diplomatic language, but become graves.
