People who claim that they have an alternative to the Iran nuclear deal besides war might want to check in with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, widely judged to be one of the three “serious” Republican candidates for president.
As Greg Sargent notes at The Washington Post, Walker has previously said that he would undo an Iran deal on the first day of his presidency, regardless of what our allies have to say about it, and now says that “the next president could be called to take aggressive actions, including military action, on the first day in office.”
As Sargent noted, Walker didn’t specifically say “military action against Iran,” but the context of his remarks was a dispute with Jeb Bush about how they would respond as president to the Iran deal. Both of them claim that they would move immediately to undo the deal, but Jeb Bush says that before acting he would first consult with US allies and with his advisors. Walker says that he would be ready to undo the deal on the first day in office. This is the context in which Walker said that he might have to take military action on the first day of his presidency.
Strikingly, neither one of them talked about consulting Congress before taking action. This omission is far more glaring in Scott Walker’s case, since he explicitly talked about the use of military force.
Under the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, the president of the United States is not allowed to use the armed forces of the United States for military action unless 1) the United States is under military attack or imminent threat of military attack or 2) Congress has authorized the use of force.
Congress has not authorized the use of force against Iran, and is not likely to do so before the next president takes office. Unless Iran attacks the US on Scott Walker’s first day in office, “President” Walker would have to ask Congress for an authorization of force in order to bomb Iran.
But maybe Walker thinks that he wouldn’t have to do that? Hopefully, some enterprising reporter can ask Scott Walker: Do you think you would need authorization from Congress before bombing Iran on your first day in office?
The dispute between Walker and Bush illustrates the fact that opponents of the Iran nuclear deal have not put forward a plausible and coherent alternative policy – because they can’t. War with Iran wouldn’t solve anything and the American people don’t want it. Leaving sanctions in place isn’t a feasible alternative because the sanctions that have really hurt Iran are international sanctions that are going away in any event following a unanimous Security Council resolution.
The Washington Post and The Hill are already publishing “whip lists” of where members of Congress stand on the deal. The broad pattern so far is: extreme Republican criticism, cautious Democratic support. If you think that Democrats should be more vocal in support of diplomacy to prevent war, you can tell them so here.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy