By Rita Cook
Correspondent
Texas Metro News
WASHINGTON D.C. – President Donald Trump did not ask Congress for permissions to take part in the airstrikes this past weekend in Iran that killed that country’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.
The United States took part in the airstrikes alongside Israel.
It has been said by some that this is just one more way to divide the United States.
The division being the definition of airstrikes versus war by those who love the current administration versus those with a strong hate for same.
The U.S. Constitution says only Congress can officially declare war and authorize major uses of military force. After this latest Iranian airstrike lawmakers said launching a large-scale military operation could lead to broader war, thus why Congress believed their approval should have been sought.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution requiring a president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces into hostilities. It also limited military engagement to 60 days unless otherwise approved.
Trump supporters say the president, as commander-in-chief, has the authority to act on threats, including military force without seeking the permission of Congress.
Trump is not the first one to bypass Congress on a decision like the one he made over the weekend.
Former President Barack Obama authorized airstrikes without obtaining explicit authorization from Congress in 2011 in Libya, and during the 2014 strikes on ISIS, to name a few. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also used military force without a specific declaration of war from Congress.
Add to a disgruntled Congress the overzealous armchair want-to-be political commentators who seem particularly emboldened to make rude comments from either side of the aisle behind a computer screen from the comfort of their big chair in front of a television blasting mainstream media propaganda.
Many of these armchair pundits make comments that are simply parroting what they hear from their choice of media versus doing their own research.
This commentary invariably leads to even more division.
And so it goes, whether you believe in war, airstrikes or peace at any cost, the United States stays divided.
And to that end, there was protesting in the streets this past weekend, much like after the United States grabbed the Venezuelan leader/non-leader (depending on which side of the aisle you are speaking from on that incident).
Remember, people in the United States took to the streets to protest that too.
Even though Venezuelans were thanking the U.S. and asking the protestors to mind their own business.
Now we have the Iran airstrikes and people were out protesting in less than 24 hours.
Even while in Iran, there are people happy to finally be free again like pre-1979.
I do believe in peace, and I do not believe war is a positive solution.
However, what do you suggest be done if there is no other answer?
In this case Israel and the United States said the strikes were meant to disrupt and degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, neutralize perceived imminent threats and target key military leaders and infrastructure.
While it is not hard to read between the lines, Trump did say during his campaigns he would avoid starting new foreign wars when elected and contrasted himself with past U.S. leaders who got bogged down in prolonged military conflicts. His supporters point out his pledge was about avoiding new long-term wars and reducing U.S. involvement in “endless” military engagements.
It was a broad statement and again comes down to definition.
It is likely many outraged protestors regarding the Iranian airstrikes do not realize Iran was once a country with freedoms like those we are known for in the United States, which makes sense they are happy to see the Supreme Leader go.
Another word to the wise, Iranian State Media being echoed by media sources is probably not your most trusted source for truths during this volatile situation.
Before the Supreme Leader took over in Iran in 1979 there was a monarchy whose rule was about modernization, strong ties with Western countries, and there was political repression according to reports. Either way, the takeover resulted in an adjusted constitution and theocratic republic where women lost existing voting rights, legal protections in marriage/divorce, their strong presence in universities and professions and they were forced to wear hijabs.
Alas, have you noticed that the grass is not greener, as we watch this latest messiness unfold.
When it comes to power in leadership positions, humans do not seem to have a knack for wisdom and humility versus an ugly side exposed. So now we have airstrikes and supreme leaders and egos taking on the role of little boys playing with big toys at the peril of 8.27 billion people currently living on planet earth.
Rita Cook is a world traveler and writer/editor who specializes in writing on travel, auto, crime and politics. A correspondent for Texas Metro News, she has published 11 books and has also produced low-budget films.
