Taming the Shrew: will the US Congress be able to keep Trump from continuing the war

The United States seriously intends to prevent Trump from unleashing hostilities in the Middle East again. The Senate supported a resolution that limits the president's authority to continue the conflict. Trump can veto it, but the whole process already suggests that the American leader is losing control of the Republican Party, experts interviewed by Izvestia noted. So far, the head of the White House has suspended the implementation of the plan to resume strikes, but only for a couple of days. Russia and China will seek to return the situation to the negotiating track, the State Duma told Izvestia. Meanwhile, the United States is already secretly concentrating on another direction.

The Senate is trying to limit Trump's powers

After seven unsuccessful attempts, the US Senate supported a resolution limiting the president's military powers. A number of Republicans also voted in favor. The media immediately called such a step a real breakthrough, but its significance is still exaggerated.

Similar precedents have already happened and, by the way, they were also connected with the Middle East, although under slightly different circumstances. In 2020, both chambers of Congress, including the then-Republican-controlled Senate, supported a resolution limiting the president's military powers after the elimination of General Qasem Soleimani. Donald Trump then vetoed it, which Congress could no longer overcome. The situation was similar in 2019. The Senate and the House of Representatives have passed a resolution demanding an end to military support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. The president also blocked this initiative. There will certainly be difficulties with the current resolution.

— While we are talking about a procedural vote, there is a general vote among all senators ahead, and then a vote in the lower house needs to be held, — American journalist Malek Dudakov told Izvestia. — I do not rule out that the Democrats will be able to arrange all this by the end of the week. And then, of course, Trump will face a choice: either accept the congressional decision as a given and curtail the Iranian direction, or impose a presidential veto.

To overcome it, two-thirds of the votes in both chambers are needed, and Trump's opponents will most likely not be able to gain that much in the near future. According to the expert, the Democrats managed to gather a majority due to the unrest that has now begun in the Republican Party — more and more parliamentarians are afraid of the unpopularity of the war in Iran, especially ahead of congressional elections. Trump's control over the party is gradually weakening, and the adoption of this resolution in Congress will be a symbolic slap in the face, the political scientist stressed.

A "flip-flop" may become quite real after the elections, as the balance of power in the US legislature is very likely to change. The "elephants" are predicted to lose their majority in the House of Representatives: in this case, it will become easier for Democrats and anti-war Republicans to promote resolutions, block funding for the military campaign and gather enough votes to not just express discontent, but turn it into real political pressure on Trump.

If the resolution is finalized, Congress will be able to officially end the use of American forces against Iran without a separate authorization or special sanction. But if Trump ignores the decision of the supreme legislative body, it will become an open constitutional conflict. Then Congress will cut off the financing of the operation and launch procedures up to impeachment. However, the 45th and 47th presidents of the United States have repeatedly managed to avoid it.

Will Trump resume strikes on Iran

The resolution is an element of the internal struggle in the United States, since Trump will not actually start a large—scale war against Iran, said Konstantin Blokhin, a leading researcher at the Center for Security Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

— His recent statements about new strikes should be considered only as a strengthening of the negotiating position with Tehran. They're bordering on bluffing," Blokhin explained.

And here, the Senate resolution even partially works in Trump's favor, reinforcing in the eyes of the Iranian authorities the image of a reckless leader who is ready to cross red lines. However, the question arises as to how effective all this is. Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, had approximately the same strategy, which was later called the "madman theory." He also tried to look like a leader in the eyes of the whole world, ready for anything. This can work in a situation where the dialogue with Iran has reached an impasse, Blokhin stressed.

For now, Trump continues to teeter on the edge of common sense and madness. On May 19, he suspended the implementation of the plan to resume strikes on Iran for two to three days in order to resolve everything through dialogue. Otherwise, the Republican is ready to "bomb everything to hell."

— Russia and China systematically condemn and oppose military actions against Iran. This position is reflected, among other things, in the joint declaration of Russia and China on the formation of a multipolar world and a new type of international relations signed during Vladimir Putin's visit to Beijing. At all levels, our countries will seek to return the situation to the negotiating track and diplomacy," Leonid Slutsky, head of the State Duma's International Affairs Committee, told Izvestia.

A resumption of the war is possible, but a new escalation will not be indefinite, Matthew Ho, an Iraq war veteran and former captain of the US Marine Corps, told Izvestia. According to him, the conflict will still be limited due to the excessive burden on the army, insufficient ammunition reserves and the inability of the American military industry to meet the needs of the troops.

"The new campaign is likely to include spectacular or high—profile attacks from the United States, such as special forces raids to capture Iranian islands or coastal territories with a propaganda effect, as well as massive airstrikes on Iranian infrastructure," the former State Department and Pentagon official suggested.

The United States cannot now inflict such a defeat on Iran that would force it to comply with American demands, Matthew Ho stressed. Washington's inconclusive military results also leave little leverage, the expert concluded. All this greatly reduces the chances of concluding a negotiated agreement, especially given the lack of clear political goals and strategies for the United States.

Reduction of US troops in Europe

The vague strategic objectives of the United States in Iran are also overlaid by American ambitions in another region, which in the future will require even more resources.

The Pentagon is currently reducing the number of brigade combat teams in the EU from four to three. And we are not talking about headquarters or rear groups, but about a full-fledged unit with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and artillery. Such formations can be quickly deployed and are used as a reserve for crisis areas.

The United States suddenly cancels the rotation of about 4,000 troops to Poland, which returns the American presence in the EU to about the level before the start of its military operation. Media reports have claimed that the decision was made because Trump is unhappy with European allies, namely their unwillingness to get involved in the Iranian conflict. Thus, the White House is putting pressure on the EU to enter the war. The official U.S. line is that Europe should be responsible for its own security, Vice President Jay D. Vance said at a recent briefing.

According to Blokhin, by presenting troop reductions under the guise of disagreements with Europe over Iran, the United States is actually transferring forces to the Asia-Pacific region, where Washington's future geopolitical interests have long been concentrated. Thus, the United States intends to create an infrastructure to contain the main threat, in their opinion, China.

—They took a turn towards Asia back under Barack Obama, when the United States realized that China was not a factory for the production of American goods and not an addition to the American economy, but the number one opponent," Blokhin stressed.

If it's not about the Asia-Pacific region, then it may seem that the United States is planning a ground operation in Iran. On May 20, J.D. Vance hinted that the United States was preparing to resume military operations against Iran. However, the same brigade of 4,000 troops will not significantly strengthen the US grouping in the Middle East, Dudakov notes. To conduct a ground operation in Iran, the Americans need tens or even hundreds of thousands of troops, which they simply have nowhere to take. The United States maintains a contingent of 50,000 people in the Middle East, but there are a lot of personnel and logistics among them.

It is interesting to note that Trump's recent state visit to China was not as successful as he claimed, which only worsens the geopolitical confrontation between Washington and Beijing. Against the background of the war in Iran, the United States is losing at least its reputation, and China, judging by the successive visits of two world leaders there, is strengthening it.

At the beginning of his second term, Trump had a man-made image of a peacemaker, but after the conflict in Iran, the invasion of Venezuela, and threats to attack Cuba, he definitely does not have to count on the Nobel Peace Prize. His approval ratings are unlikely to rise to the levels of early 2025. Therefore, the head of the White House has to go all-in: if he takes up arms, then he must go all the way. In order to focus on the confrontation with China, he is trying to complete all his "military projects" as soon as possible. And to do this, he will continue to use his trademark psychological swings: threaten and attack, and then take a step back, assuring about the approach of the next deal.