Who Decides War: Trump, or the Constitution?

A credible democracy does not drift into war on the strength of rhetoric, speculation, or executive impulse. Yet that is precisely the anxiety surrounding President Donald Trump and the intensifying discussion of possible US military action against Iran. Reports suggest that lawmakers may soon vote on whether to restrain the president’s authority to initiate hostilities without explicit approval. That vote, if it happens, will not be procedural theater — it will be a constitutional test.

The power to declare war resides with the US Congress, not the White House. This division of authority is not a technicality; it is a safeguard designed to prevent unilateral decisions carrying irreversible human, economic, and geopolitical consequences. Limited defensive strikes may fall within executive discretion, but sustained, weeks-long military operations clearly cross into territory requiring legislative consent.

According to Reuters, the US military has been preparing for the possibility of extended operations should diplomacy fail. Preparation, however, must not be confused with authorization. A democracy’s legitimacy rests not merely on capability, but on adherence to process.

The bipartisan initiatives led by Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul, alongside Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, reaffirm a fundamental principle - if war is justified, elected officials must debate it openly and vote on it transparently. Evading that responsibility corrodes accountability and weakens democratic credibility at home and abroad.

Supporters of expansive presidential authority argue that Congress should not restrict national security powers. But oversight is not obstruction. Requiring approval is not weakness. It is the constitutional mechanism ensuring that war reflects national consensus rather than political expediency.

An attack on Iran would reverberate far beyond the battlefield — unsettling global markets, inflaming regional tensions, and risking dangerous escalation across an already volatile Middle East. Such a decision demands scrutiny measured not in cable news cycles, but in constitutional gravity.

If conflict is unavoidable, Congress must own the decision. If peace remains possible, diplomacy must be exhausted. What cannot be justified is silence — or worse, the surrender of legislative authority when it matters most.

Pentagon moving carrier strike group toward Middle East

According to The Hill, the Pentagon on Thursday said it is moving a carrier strike group from the South China Sea toward the Middle East as tensions between the US and Iran continue to rise. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its strike group were spotted moving west away from the Indo-Pacific region. The movement of the carrier strike group — which includes fighter jets, guided missile destroyers and at least one attack submarine — is expected to take about a week. 

This movement comes as tensions between Washington and Tehran have spiked amid unrest in Iran over its economy and questions about whether President Trump will strike the country to aid mass protests challenging the autocratic regime.

Trump earlier this week encouraged Iranian protesters to continue pressuring the regime and vowed that “help is on the way,” signaling potential US intervention. But Tehran has pushed back with its own threats.

The president so far has held off on any strikes in Iran, continuing to monitor the situation in the country. He was also advised that a large-scale strike against Iran was unlikely to topple the regime and could instead set off a wider conflict.

Advisers informed Trump that the US military would need more troops and equipment in the Middle East to launch any large-scale strike while still protecting American forces in the region from potential retaliation, according to the Journal.

A senior US official also told The New York Times that Trump is waiting to see Iran’s next move as he considers striking such targets as ballistic missile sites and Iran’s domestic security apparatus, and that any attack “is at least several days away.”

Protests have escalated in Iran since late December in response to declining economic conditions. It’s not clear exactly how many people have died in the protests because of the Iranian government’s internet blackout across the country, but the Human Rights Activists News Agency said more than 2,600 people have been killed and more than 184,000 have been detained. 

Iran has largely been restricting information in and out of the country, and Wednesday it issued a “Notice to Air Missions,” or NOTAM, that flights in and out of Tehran have been restricted.

The US administration on Thursday also announced new sanctions against “the architects of the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators” and the “shadow banking networks” alleged to be helping wealthy Iranians divert funds generated by the country’s natural resources.

The USS Abraham Lincoln has been deployed since late November, after it departed San Diego with no Pentagon announcement for where it would be sent. 

 

Western Media’s Selective Outrage on Iran

Protests are a natural and fundamental part of any society whose citizens care about their future and believe they can influence it. They are not a sign of systemic failure, but an indicator of civic health and the practice of free speech, assembly, and association. For Western states, their media, and their politicians, all of this holds true—except when the protests occur in Iran.

The unprecedented volatility in the currency market and the rapid devaluation of the Iranian Rial in recent weeks compelled business owners (known as bazaaris) to shutter their shops, go on strike, and gather in several of Tehran’s central squares to voice their discontent. Reports from journalists on the scene and footage shared by participants indicate the protests—spanning several days—remained largely peaceful.

Demonstrators refrained from vandalizing public property, kept pathways open for vehicles, and directed their slogans toward improved economic management. Anti-riot forces monitored the gatherings and seldom intervened. None of what has emerged from Iran would be unfamiliar in the regular protests seen across European capitals or American cities.

Yet this manner of protest does not sit well with the West or with Israel. Circulated videos show unidentified individuals urging bazaaris to vandalize property and block streets. In one instance, a young woman addressing a crowd fled after protesters refused to escalate into violence. In another, a man attempted to set a municipal trash bin ablaze before bystanders intervened and security forces arrested him. None of the bazaaris recognized him afterward.

Simultaneously, an online influence campaign has emerged, editing videos and fabricating audio to falsely suggest protesters are demanding the return of the deposed Shah’s son. A widely circulated image symbolizing the protests was later exposed as AI-generated.

Israel has openly admitted deploying agents to steer these peaceful demonstrations toward chaos. Mossad’s Persian-language account urged Iranians to “hit the streets,” while an Israeli television reporter openly called for organizing protests to justify a wider war. Iran International echoed similar narratives, promoting escalation as a pathway to foreign military action.

Political figures joined in. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared his readiness to help Iranians achieve “freedom,” while US President Donald Trump warned Iran of further “turmoil,” without acknowledging that Iran’s economic distress stems largely from the “maximum pressure” sanctions he imposed in 2018.

Iranian authorities acknowledged the protests and announced steps to stabilize the Rial. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf both described the demonstrations as legitimate while cautioning against foreign exploitation.

Ultimately, these events reveal a clear double standard - peaceful assembly is praised in one context yet exploited when it occurs in a country opposed by Western and Israeli interests. The true measure of these protests lies not in sensationalized narratives from abroad, but in the legitimate and orderly spirit shown by the Iranian people themselves.

Iran says US attempting to use unrest to weaken country

Iran faced more international criticism on Monday over the death of a woman in police custody that triggered nationwide protests after Tehran accused the United States of using the unrest to try to destabilize the country.

Iran has cracked down on the biggest demonstrations since 2019, sparked by the death of 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini on September 16 this year after she was detained by morality police enforcing the Islamic Republic's strict restrictions on women's dress. The case has drawn widespread condemnation.

The measures have not stopped Iranians from calling for the fall of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the rest of the clerical establishment.

Canada will impose sanctions on those responsible for the death of Amini, including Iran's morality police unit and its leadership, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Monday.

"We've seen Iran disregarding human rights time and time again, now we see it with the death of Mahsa Amini and the crackdown on protests," Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa.

Activist Twitter account 1500tasvir posted videos it said showed street protests late on Monday in different parts of Tehran, and footage where residents could be heard shouting "Death to Khamenei" from their homes. Reuters could not verify the videos.

Human rights group Hengaw posted a video which it said showed protesters cheering in Sanandaj, capital of Kurdistan province, as women took off their headscarves to protest forced hijab. In a later video, heavy shooting could be heard as streets appeared to be filled with tear gas.

Another video posted on social media purported to show security forces opening fire late on Monday during protests in Sardasht, a town with a large Kurdish population. Reuters could not verify the videos.

Iran said the United States was supporting rioters and seeking to destabilize the Islamic Republic.

"Washington is always trying to weaken Iran's stability and security although it has been unsuccessful," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani said in a statement.

On his Instagram page, Kanaani accused the leaders of the United States and some European countries of abusing a tragic incident in support of "rioters" and ignoring "the presence of millions of people in the streets and squares of the country in support of the system".

Also on Monday, Germany summoned the Iranian ambassador in Berlin to urge Tehran to stop its crackdown and allow peaceful protests. Asked about the possibility of further sanctions on Tehran in response to the violence, a German foreign ministry spokesperson had earlier said, "We will consider all options" with other European Union states. 

Last week, the United States imposed sanctions on Iran's morality police over allegations of abuse of Iranian women, saying it held the unit responsible for the death of Amini.

On Sunday, Iran summoned the British and Norwegian ambassadors over what it called interference and hostile media coverage of the unrest.

The anti-government protests are the largest to sweep Iran since demonstrations over fuel prices in 2019, when Reuters reported 1,500 people were killed in a crackdown on protesters - the bloodiest bout of internal unrest in the Islamic Republic's history.

Although the demonstrations over Amini's death are a major challenge to the government, analysts see no immediate threat to Iran's leaders because the elite security forces have stamped out protests in the past.

Iran has blamed armed Iranian Kurdish dissidents of involvement in the unrest, particularly in the northwest where most of Iran's up to 10 million Kurds live.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards launched an artillery and drone attack on Iranian militant opposition bases in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, the second such attack in two days, state media said.