Lawmakers from both parties are working together to keep the US out of the growing conflict between Israel and Iran in a rare instance of bipartisan cooperation. The newly proposed Bipartisan War Powers Resolution, which was co-led by Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California and introduced by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, is at the heart of the endeavor.

The resolution, which would forbid U.S. military participation in the Israel-Iran conflict without express congressional approval, is a daring position that is becoming more and more popular among libertarians, progressives, and foreign policy skeptics.

“We’re not fighting this war.”
The resolution was announced by Rep. Massie on X (formerly Twitter), where she wrote:

“We are not fighting this war. If it were, however, our Constitution would require Congress to make such decisions. Tomorrow, I will introduce a bipartisan War Powers Resolution that would forbid our participation. I’m asking every congressman to co-sponsor this resolution.

Once formally introduced, the resolution, which is categorized as a privileged measure, must be voted on. This means that lawmakers will have to publicly discuss whether or not the United States should become directly involved in the Middle East conflict.

Growing Progressive Support
Progressive Democrats are rapidly endorsing the action.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York expressed her agreement with a straightforward response:

“I’m signing on.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan also voiced her strong support, citing the contentious history of military interventions in the United States:

She wrote, “I’m excited to support this War Powers Resolution.” “It is not going to fool the American people again. We were misled about Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” which killed millions of people and permanently altered lives. Trump’s decision to go to war without a congressional vote is unconstitutional.

As co-lead, Khanna contributed his voice:

“In Iran, no war.” Every member should go on record now. Do you support the American people or the neocons who led us into Iraq?

Opposition from Republicans Holds the Line
Even though the bill is bipartisan, not all Republicans support it.

The measure was flatly rejected by Republican Representative Mike Lawler of New York, who was recently endorsed by former President Trump.

“You can bet that I’ll say no if AOC and Massie say yes,” Lawler posted on X. “North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran are neither our allies nor our friends. A nuclear-armed Iran would aim to destroy Israel and virtually guarantee World War I. That is not something we can tolerate. We have to support Israel.

Introduced Senate Companion Bill
Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, introduced a parallel joint resolution in the Senate urging the president to end American military engagement in Iran’s wars unless Congress approves it.

Kaine stated in a press release that “going to war with Iran is not in our national security interest unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States.” “The United States could be drawn into yet another protracted conflict very soon due to the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran.”

Kaine stressed that, in line with the Constitution, the resolution would require Congress to discuss and vote on it, but it would not bar military action if necessary.

“Sending service members to fight in another never-ending war in the Middle East is not something that the American people are interested in.”

Trump’s Position Is Still Uncertain

During an overnight flight back to Washington, President Trump denied rumors that he had left the G7 summit in Canada early to work on a cease-fire.

Trump informed reporters on Air Force One that “we’re looking at better than a cease-fire.” “A cease-fire is not what we’re after. I didn’t mention that I wanted a cease-fire.

When asked what he meant by “better than a cease-fire,” Trump said:

“A conclusion. Not a ceasefire, but a true end. A conclusion. It’s also possible to give up completely.

His enigmatic comments have increased skepticism regarding the administration’s actual goals, especially in light of the escalating Middle East tension and the growing demand for a constitutional check on the executive branch’s war powers.

What Takes Place Next?

Congress may soon have to publicly decide whether to permit U.S. forces to take military action against Iran due to resolutions in the House and Senate. This decision could have a long-term impact on U.S. foreign policy.

Additionally, a wider discussion is beginning to emerge as bipartisan support for the reaffirmation of Congressional war powers increases: Should the United States continue its long-standing role as a global enforcer, or is it time to back off and let diplomacy take the lead?