[Jim Noble]

If Trump isn't going to strike the Iranian nuke program

And what, in the US Constitution or the US Code, would give him the authority to do that?

[HighSierra5]

You could say that keeping Iran from getting nukes would be the duty of the President to defend the U.S.. All you have to do is destroy one of their refineries. You don’t have to go all out. That way all of the anti intervention folks won’t get their panties in a wad. These Mullahs are trying to disrupt the economy and I don’t want to pay $8 per gallon and all of the price increases that go along with that. Oil prices are determined on the global market. Some people have more than one vehicle. When I was in full blown contracting I had five trucks plus my personal vehicles.

[nathanbedford]

That is a very good question, what is the state of the president's power to engage in military strikes for a period of time before securing congressional approval? Did not some authorization like this emerge in the wake of 9/11?

Our problem is that technology has overrun the 18th-century concepts of declaring war and securing congressional approval. A nuclear bomb on the tip of a ICBM gives the president minutes, not weeks to react and to seek a declaration of war from Congress.

On the other hand, we see the parallels in the year's long buildup of sanctions against Iran with the sanctions against Japan that precipitated (but did not justify) Pearl Harbor. There is time today for the president to secure authorization for a proactive or, or a more easily obtained, reactive military strike in view of the clearly increasing level of tensions. He probably does not require any congressional authorization if American installations or ships are attacked. Again another problem, the Democrats would eagerly sacrifice national security if that got them Trump's head so there is very little likelihood of a pre-strike authorization coming out of Congress.

Roosevelt was often accused of deliberately provoking both Germany and Japan into war, how will Trump navigate this problem? The author argues that recent events have only illustrated Trump's dilemma: he cannot get either his allies or Congress to authorize a strike, he does not want to strike anyway, but his forbearance allegedly reveals weakness.

One could counter and say that the Iranians lashing out in these various attacks betrays their desperation. I think Trump should continue to emulate the Roosevelt example in the lead up to World War II: apply maximum pressure against Japan, embargo Japan's access to oil and offer every aid and assistance to Germany's enemies. In other words, tighten sanctions, supply Saudi Arabia with the iron Dome, perhaps escort ships through the straits of Hormoz, attend the upcoming UN meeting to ratchet up diplomatic pressure against Iran and saber rattle-that was what John Bolton was good for.

If this sounds like I'm eager to make war, nothing could be further from the truth. However, just as nuclear technology has run past our constitutional concept of declarations of war, so has nuclear technology overrun our historic assumptions of security based on our geographical isolation. Iran with an ICBM with a nuclear warhead is an enemy very much to be feared. We ignore that threat at our peril.

[PIF]

Regardless of “authority”, the Iranian nuke program exist for one purpose: starting a world-wide nuclear war.

Best to wait until they start launching before responding ‘cause like Captain Naught said: we can absorb a few nuclear hits. We wouldn’t want to go against the suicide pact called the US Constitution or stop playing by Marquess of Queensberry Rules! The horror!

[Redwood71]

The only thing in the loop to create an appearance of stopping the president from acting is the War Powers Act, originally from 1973. But it is limited. Except in an emergency, it requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. It does not give congress the authority to stop the president from dispatching troops and using them for up to 60 days with a 30 day withdraw period without their declaration of war.

This has been done by almost every president since Truman. The last one done by Obama sending troops into Lybia without congressional approval. Carter went into Iran, Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, Reagan into Lebanon, Johnson into Vietnam. Factually the only presidents to actually use congress were President George W. Bush who was given the go-ahead by lawmakers for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and President George H.W. Bush received congressional backing for the Gulf War.

The acts of the presidents have been challenged in the supreme court but would not be heard as there was no legal precedence to over rule the existing voted act until after the 90 day period was violated. Then the law could be enforced and troops withdrawn. But it’s never happened.

rwood

[Kazan]

And what, in the US Constitution or the US Code, would give him the authority to do that?

The same one that has justified every single military action taken by a President.

An Iran with nuclear weapons is grave threat to the this country and the world.

You sound like Valerie Jarrett or Susan Rice.

[Kazan]

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBGPw_LBiRA

[minnesota_bound]

President is commander in chief.
Iran will use the nuclear weapons and give other countries the weapons to use.

Trump needs to stop Iran and jail the obamas and clintons and the other crooks or our way of life is over.