Newou can listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump is considering whether to order us from Iran and will decide within two weeks, White House officials said Thursday that he closed a day of intense speculation about the president’s plans in the region, touching on new horrors of escalation, retaliation and long-term involvement in another foreign conflict.
Trump spent most of the week generally meditating on the prospect of making the US more directly involved in the Israeli-Iran conflict as both countries continued to take on deadly strikes on each other. As the week went on, Trump continued to break with attempts by Cabinet officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to avert the role the United States played in supporting Israel.
Trump on social media on Wednesday warned that the US “has fully and completely control of the air via Iran,” demanding Iran a “unconstitutional surrender.”
He also repeatedly refused to rule out the prospect of carrying out a direct strike against Iran. “I might do that. I might not,” he told reporters Wednesday. “I mean, no one knows what I’m trying to do,” he said.
This statement shows a central issue in any other statement, beyond much of Washington this week. This is because Trump continues to chat with his advisors for a meeting in the situation room, including at least one meeting that reportedly approved a plan for the attack on Tehran. (News from that meeting was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.)
Trump, who makes the Iranian decision, was given the opportunity to negotiate “in the next two weeks,” Leavitt said.
White House spokesman Caroline Leavitt said Thursday that President Donald Trump will decide to engage in Israel’s conflict with Iran within the next two weeks. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
White House spokesman Caroline Levitt refused to elaborate on the nature of U.S. Iran talks on Thursday, and reporters said they planned to decide how Trump would go in within two weeks.
Meanwhile, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei refused to negotiate with the US on Wednesday, warning that if they attack Iran, they would “be surely face irreparable harm.”
What we know about Trump’s options is if he chooses to order our strike against Iran.
Skills Solution
Trump has considered ordering the US to launch a strike against Iran, including the possibility of targeting the country’s nuclear enrichment facility in Fordow, a major nuclear facility located south of Tehran.
But while Trump huddled with his advisor at the White House, lawmakers are convening on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Trump’s remarks have done little to raise the fear of escalation in the Middle East. Both are from MAGA supporters over his promise to end the “eternal war” and Democrats fearing the retaliation that the attacks will bring.
Rep. Thomas Massey (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif) announced this week a new bipartisan law requiring Trump to get Congressional approval before signing meaningful involvement in Iran, including an offensive strike at nuclear facilities.
The bill has attracted the support of a strange coalition of bipartisan lawmakers, including Trump supporters who are opposed to more foreign war involvement.
These lawmakers argue that Trump will violate US law when he acts unilaterally. That is, it was listed in the restrictions, or the resolution of war power, listed in the law passed in Parliament in 1973, which aimed to codify cases in which the president could allow the use of force in foreign conflicts without a formal declaration of war.
“Instinct for Restraint”: The Senate separates who will declare war
President Donald Trump will speak with reporters on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, before it is set up on the South Lawn in Washington on the South Lawn of the White House. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
“The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war,” Massy announced the bill. “Even if that is the case, Congress must decide such matters in accordance with our constitution.”
However, in the decades since the law was passed, the president has significantly expanded the lack of Congressional approval, including both Democrats and Republican presidents. This has been reflected to some extent in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. This views more broadly the Article 2 powers granted to the President when initiating the use of force, especially when it is in “national interest” to do so.
These broader powers have been used by Republican presidents, and in both the Obama and Biden administrations, authorities told Fox News Digital.
Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, highlighted this in an interview with Fox News.
He said in an interview Thursday that there are “a lot of precedents for presidents who ignore technology” in war power regulation.
Ultimately, Rubin said the president “has the ability to act without it for a certain period of time. [the law] In reality, it only applies when entering a massive operation, rather than a one-off bombing. ”
“The fact of the matter is that the worst option for American security is to allow Iran to reconfigure its program for what is buried in the Fordau,” said Rubin, a former Pentagon official whose work at AEI focuses primarily on issues of the Middle East.
The fear of escalation
However, in the interim, Trump’s threat has been dangerous to the possibility of retaliation from Tehran, raising concerns from critics who are potentially looking at his remarks.
Critics have suggested that it could put US officials stationed abroad at risk, including those within Iran’s strike range.
“Using US leverage to stop the White House fighting should be the White House interest,” Brian Finucan, senior adviser to International Crisis Group, told Fox News in an interview.
“The US is now supporting Israel with missile defense,” he said. The defense business is “to stop the fight,” he said.
President Donald Trump will arrive in Air Force 1 on Sunday, June 15th, 2025 at Calgary International Airport, Canada, ahead of the G7 Summit. (AP Photo/Gerard Herbert)
International Law
There is also fear that the United States may be acting in violation of international law, including the UN Charter “with the exception of certain limited circumstances, such as self-defense,” and “with the exception of certain limited circumstances.” According to a white paper published by Just Security in 2019, there is fear that the United Nations may be acting in violation of international law.
In this situation, critics say the US has no pretext to approve a strike against Iran.
“I don’t think there’s a plausible self-defense debate against US military action against Iran,” Brian Finucan, senior adviser to International Crisis Group, told Fox News in an interview.
“American military cases against Iran will therefore violate the UN Charter and therefore the President’s obligations of the Constitution to note that the law is faithfully enforced,” he said.
As Trump overwhelmed his next step, the others on the hill and beyond have become more cooperative.
In an interview with Fox & Friends on Thursday morning, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) praised Trump’s actions in the area, saying he “doesn’t do the right thing to keep America safe.”
“He was very consistent for 10 years saying Iran would not be allowed to have nuclear weapons,” Barrasso said. “He said it strongly. He knows that Iran with nuclear weapons is a threat to the people of the United States, so he read it over and over. We are standing with the people. [of] Israel. “
Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s most vocal supporters, said in an interview earlier this week that he believes he wants to “finish the job” to destroy Fordow.
“I don’t think Israel can finish Fordow without our help. It’s our interest to make sure this program is destroyed, like Israel,” he said in an interview.
“And if there’s something necessary to help Israel, I’ll do it,” he said.
Rubin, an AEI fellow, also sought to distinguish Trump’s actions from other presidents who have been engaged in long foreign conflicts.
“The problem with Iran is that we are not entangled with the US in the war,” Rubin said. “We’re taking advantage of the opportunity to completely end the crisis. It’s like a one-shot deal.”
Next Steps
Still, it is unclear what Trump’s final game will be if he chooses to attack Iran.
Finukan, an advisor to the International Crisis Group, who previously spent 10 years at the International Bureau’s Legal Advisor, said it was due to several designs.
“The Constitution is very intentional and gives Parliament the power to declare war,” he said.
“And that’s what it does to do,” he said. “It requires collective decision making, and previous public discussion and deliberation. [of] “The costs and benefits of the most important decisions the US government can make in terms of blood and treasure,” he said.
Click here to get the Fox News app
“Therefore, if the United States wants to minimize the risk of being dragged into unnecessary wars in the Middle East, and at least to local people, including local Americans, whether or not the White House wants to be involved or not.”
Breanne Deppisch is a national political reporter for Fox News Digital, covering the Trump administration, focusing on the Department of Justice, the FBI and other national news.
Source link
