【Wen / Observers Network, Ruan Jiaqi】
According to the U.S. "Politico" website, on Saturday morning, after the Trump administration took military action against Iran, some critics in the U.S. Congress quickly voiced condemnation, denouncing the move as an "unauthorized and unjustified" act of war.
In a video released after the attack, Trump claimed that Iran was developing long-range missiles threatening the United States, and this strike aimed to destroy Iran's missile industry, eliminate its navy, and ensure it could not obtain nuclear weapons.
He also admitted that the operation might result in casualties among U.S. personnel, but insisted it was "for the future."
Opponents were not convinced by this reasoning. As one of the first Democrats to respond to the air strike, Arizona Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego condemned the operation on social media.
He wrote: "It is not worth sending young soldiers from working-class backgrounds to pay the ultimate price for a regime change and a war that has never been reasonably explained or justified to the American people. We can support Iran's democratic movement and people without sending troops to die."
Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner further added that Trump launched a military strike overnight against a series of targets, including Iranian senior leaders. This is a far-reaching decision that could drag the United States into another large-scale conflict in the Middle East.
He also bluntly stated, "The American people have seen this tactic before—claiming urgency, distorting intelligence, and dragging the country into military actions for regime change and prolonged, costly nation-building."
Soon after reports of the attack on Tehran came out at night, Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massie, who has long criticized Trump, also labeled the strike as an "unauthorized war" on social media.
Massie and California Democratic Representative Ro Khanna had planned to push for a vote next week to pass legislation limiting Trump's power to take unilateral military action against Iran without Congressional approval, but they did not expect the Trump administration to act first.
Despite calls from key Democratic figures in the House for Speaker Mike Johnson to reconvene the House on Monday to debate the Iran War Powers resolution, the House is expected to hold related votes only on Wednesday.
The U.S. military base in Bahrain entered emergency status following an Iranian missile attack. Oriental IC
In contrast, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, and other "hawkish" lawmakers such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Republican Roger Wicker, who have long taken a hard line against Iran, praised the operation, calling it a "necessary and long overdue" action to protect American interests and strike so-called supporters of terrorism. Wicker also praised the operation as a "comprehensive strategy and meticulously planned military deployment process using all national power tools."
Graham wrote in a long article: "The end of the world for the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism has arrived, and the suffering Iranian people will finally gain freedom."
He praised the operation as "well-planned," acknowledging that it would be a "violent and large-scale" action, but firmly believing that "it will ultimately succeed." He also predicted the fall of the Iranian regime and believed that the normalization process of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel would likely return to track.
Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman crossed party lines to support the operation alongside Graham and Wicker. He said on social media, "President Trump is willing to take the right and necessary action to bring real peace to the region."
"Politico" noted that the attack was undoubtedly a political gamble for Trump, especially with the midterm elections approaching this autumn. Trump had vowed not to involve the United States in any overseas wars, which is one of the core elements of his "America First" policy.
On February 28, local time, in Washington, D.C., President Trump delivered a military statement targeting Iran in a video posted on a social platform. Oriental IC
According to reports from The Wall Street Journal and CNN, according to multiple sources, on Friday evening, before the U.S.-Israel joint military operation was about to launch, the Trump administration had already informed some members of the so-called "Gang of Eight" (a bipartisan group in Congress), but did not fully explain the legal basis for the operation.
It is known that the "Gang of Eight" members include the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties in the Senate and House, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in both chambers. The executive branch usually briefs this group on classified intelligence matters.
The specific members are: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (Republican) and Ranking Member Mark Warner (Democrat), House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (Republican) and Ranking Member Trent Kelly (Republican).
Another source said that Secretary of State Rubio had notified relevant congressmen via phone and text message before the strike, and Johnson, Thune, and Warner had already been informed in advance.
However, "Politico" emphasized that although Rubio had informed the "Gang of Eight," Thune and Schumer had previously clearly stated that the government must consult with Congress before taking any military action.
Just days before the operation, Rubio had briefed the leaders of the Senate and House and the heads of the intelligence committees on the situation in Iran. After the secret briefing, Democrats said that the Trump administration must explain the justification for the operation to the American public before potentially going to war with Tehran.
"This is a matter of great importance; the government must explain the reasons to the American people," Schumer said at the time.
The Financial Times of the UK commented that 79-year-old Trump had made ending America's "endless wars" a central campaign issue, and the attack on Iran on Saturday marked his highest-risk military gamble so far. This also reflects his increasing willingness to launch deadly military operations around the world — from Yemen, Nigeria, Syria, to recent operations against drug trafficking vessels in the Pacific and Caribbean international waters, which all show this tendency.
The report pointed out that through this strike, Trump hopes to achieve a strategic goal that previous U.S. administrations have long pursued. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, every U.S. president has tried different means to contain Iran: from multiple rounds of sanctions, to Bush placing Tehran on the so-called "axis of evil," to Obama signing a nuclear agreement, while Trump tore up the agreement during his first term.
The article argues that Trump's boldness in launching this attack stems from the limited strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in June last year, which did not trigger widespread regional conflicts that many feared. However, this attack is much larger in scale, and the survival-threatening Iran has quickly fired missiles at U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, and Kuwait.
Video screenshot of the U.S. military base in Bahrain attacked by Iran, verified by The Wall Street Journal
This strike on Iran also brought significant domestic political risks for Trump: first, global energy market turbulence may push up U.S. gasoline prices as the midterm elections approach. William Jackson of Capital Economics said in a report on Saturday, "A limited strike may push oil prices close to $80 per barrel; if a longer conflict leads to supply disruptions, it may cause a sharp rise in prices and have a significant impact on global inflation."
Second, part of Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) base opposes his military adventurism, considering this action a betrayal of his promise to avoid new conflicts, and it diverts the White House's focus from addressing high living costs and other domestic issues.
Moreover, the trauma left by the failed, costly, and prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still lingers in various political factions.
Rosie Kell尼克, director of the Middle East program at the Washington-based think tank "Defense Priorities," said bluntly: "By striking Iran, President Trump is putting the lives of U.S. soldiers at unnecessary risk under false pretenses. (He mistakenly promotes the idea that) a small and distant country like Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States."
A Quinnipiac University poll released last month also confirmed public dissatisfaction: 70% of Americans believe the U.S. should not use military force to support Iranian protesters, and only 18% support the strike; meanwhile, most Americans believe Trump needs to get Congressional approval before launching military actions in other countries, which he did not do this time.
This week, Vice President JD Vance, known for his skepticism toward military intervention, expressed indifference to these concerns in an interview with The Washington Post.
"I do believe we must avoid repeating past mistakes, but I also believe we must avoid overreacting to them," he argued, "It doesn't mean we can never participate in military conflicts just because a president messed up one."
This article is exclusive to Observers Network. It cannot be reprinted without permission.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7611936833810858511/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.