Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, is advocating for the United States to remain uninvolved in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. During an interview on Morning Edition, Smith expressed concerns about the potential risks of increasing military presence in the region, particularly the safety of American troops.
Smith noted that while Iran appears to be advancing its nuclear capabilities, the unpredictability of getting involved in military actions makes him wary. He stated, “If we get involved in this war, Iran will start hitting U.S. troops and then it becomes unpredictable, which is why I do not think that we should do this.” As of now, the Pentagon has approximately 40,000 U.S. troops stationed within the Middle East.
The ongoing situation is causing concern from various lawmakers, especially with President Donald Trump considering military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. There are discussions surrounding the Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plant, a crucial site for Iran’s nuclear program. Although President Trump has refused to disclose his intentions, he remarked, “I may do it, I may not do it. Nobody knows what I want to do,” suggesting that the administration is weighing all potential options moving forward.
On Capitol Hill, opinions are divided regarding the United States’ approach to Iran. Smith’s stance aligns with a number of senior Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Chris Coons, who express concern over the potential repercussions of military intervention. Ocasio-Cortez has even joined fellow Democrats in backing a bipartisan resolution introduced by Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, which seeks to prohibit any military engagement with Iran without Congressional approval.
Coons voiced that while a conflict between Israel and Iran might have domestic political benefits for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it could lead to disastrous outcomes for the security of both Israel and the United States. He emphasized the need for caution in how the situation is approached.
Though there is a consensus among many lawmakers that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is paramount, discussions about military options are highly contentious. Five senior Democratic senators recently stated, “By law, the president must consult Congress and seek authorization if he is considering taking the country to war. He owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement in the region.”
On the other hand, some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Mike Lawler, support military intervention, irrespective of Congressional approval. Lawler commented, “If that is what is required to finish the job, I fully support it.” This highlights the stark divisions within Congress regarding how to manage the threats posed by Iran.
In an in-depth discussion with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, Rep. Adam Smith articulated his views on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the necessity of Congressional approval ahead of any military action.
When questioned about the allegations regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Smith conceded that he believed it was likely Iran was pursuing such capabilities, reiterating that the country has been incrementally increasing its uranium enrichment capacity. “It’s not actually a secret that they’ve been massively increasing their enrichment capacity,” he stated.
He elaborated that while gathering material is clear, there exists a distinction between merely enriching uranium and the actual development of a nuclear weapon. Smith expressed concern that while Iran may be cautious, it is still advancing toward reaching the borderline of developing nuclear weapons.
In addressing the Constitutional implications of potential military action, Smith stated that he believes Congressional input is essential. He stressed, “I don’t think that we should get directly involved in attacking Iran. And if the decision were to be made to do that, I think under the Constitution, Congress’ approval, our approval should be required.”
Inskeep probed further into whether such requirements would hold true not only for a full-scale war but also for an airstrike on Iran. In response, Smith asserted that any military action would not fall under an inherent right of self-defense, as there is no existing Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that would permit such operations.
Despite his stance, Smith acknowledged the practical realities of politics, admitting that historically, presidents have often acted without Congressional consent when it comes to military engagements. He concluded that while legally Congress should be consulted, he recognizes that President Trump might assert the right to act unilaterally without such approval.
In closing, Inskeep asked whether a commitment to a full-scale war would be necessary if matters escalated. Smith’s responses underscored the importance of careful deliberation in a highly volatile region, with significant consequences for U.S. military and diplomatic action in the Middle East.
image source from：npr
