This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/national-security-officials-to-deliver-iran-briefings-for-congress-as-conflict-appears-to-de-escalate/2020/01/08/2854e8ea-322d-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
National security officials deliver Iran briefings for Congress as conflict appears to de-escalate Hill Democrats, Republicans at odds after national security officials make the case for Iran strike
(about 2 hours later)
Four of the Trump administration’s most senior national security officials are meeting behind closed doors with House and Senate lawmakers Wednesday to discuss the latest developments in the standoff with Iran following the killing of its most powerful military commander, Qasem Soleimani. House Republicans were satisfied and Democrats exasperated by Wednesday’s briefing from top national security officials on the Iran standoff, in which they argued that President Trump had a legal right to kill a top military commander without seeking Congress’s permission — and that he did so to ward off an imminent threat.
The briefings, taking place nearly a week after President Trump ordered the strike, are the first opportunity most members of Congress will have to hear directly from those who were involved in the decision to take out Soleimani and are currently strategizing the administration’s next moves, after Iran fired missiles at a U.S. coalition base in Iraq overnight. “Sophomoric and utterly unconvincing,” Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees said upon exiting the closed-door briefing, adding that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, CIA director Gina Haspel and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley made “no case” that Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani posed an imminent threat.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a Trump confidante who also sits on both committees, emerged from the same briefing calling it “the strongest and most decisive briefing that has ever been conducted in that classified setting,” praising Haspel especially for sharing “compelling” and “exhaustive” evidence about the need for the strike.
“It leaves little doubt in my mind and certainly should leave little doubt in any member’s mind that not only did the president make the right call, but that this was a clear and present danger for American interests and American individuals,” Meadows said.
Live updates: Trump says Iranian strike caused no American or Iraqi casualties, new sanctions on Iran will be imposedLive updates: Trump says Iranian strike caused no American or Iraqi casualties, new sanctions on Iran will be imposed
The briefings with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, come as congressional Democrats are contemplating votes on resolutions that seek to restrain Trump’s ability to counter Iran, and ordering the president to withdraw U.S. forces engaged in hostilities against Tehran. The briefers later moved to the Senate, to make a similar case to lawmakers assembled there. But the initial competing assessments of House Republicans and Democrats suggest there is little hope for the parties to reach common ground on how Congress should respond to Trump’s decision to take out Soleimani.
Trump announced Wednesday morning that “Iran appears to be standing down,” noting that “no American or Iraqi lives were lost” in the attack on coalition facilities. The president made his comments flanked by Vice President Pence, Pompeo and several military leaders. He did not endorse additional hostile action against Iran. Republicans went into Wednesday’s briefings praising Trump’s actions as prudent steps that rid the world of a terrorist who posed a grave threat to the United States and its interests, while Democrats have in recent days argued that even if Soleimani was reprehensible, the strike to kill him was “reckless,” considering its potential to escalate tensions in the region.
Iran fired missiles at a U.S. coalition base in Iraq overnight, but avoided killing any Americans or Iraqis — leading Trump to conclude in an address Wednesday morning that Tehran “appears to be standing down” and de-escalating the conflict. Though the president made his comments flanked by Vice President Pence, Pompeo and several military leaders, he did not endorse additional hostile action against Iran.
Instead, the president promised that the administration would “immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime.”Instead, the president promised that the administration would “immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime.”
Trump’s team offers mixed messages about ‘imminent’ attack from Iran as justification for killing SoleimaniTrump’s team offers mixed messages about ‘imminent’ attack from Iran as justification for killing Soleimani
It is unclear how the president’s apparent turn away from military conflict — for now — will affect Democrats’ plans. They have been unconvinced by the administration’s argument that it had legal authority to conduct the strike on Soleimani, which officials have claimed was done both in self-defense and in accordance with Congress’s 2002 authorization to use military force in Iraq against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Yet the apparent de-escalation has not quelled Democrats’ desire to assert its authority over Trump’s moves by voting on a war powers resolution ordering Trump to remove forces engaged in hostilities with Iran.
Senior administration officials contradicted one another this week when making public statements about whether the strike was carried out as retaliation against attacks by Iran-backed militias, or to ward off an “imminent” attack. According to several members present for the briefing, administration officials staked their claim to legal authority on two grounds: the president’s authority as the military’s commander in chief, and an authorization for military force that Congress passed in 2002, paving the way for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
On Wednesday morning, a group of House Democrats led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) sent a letter to Trump, arguing that the administration “has yet to provide the American people and Congress with a sufficient explanation as to why this action was necessary” nor what its strategy is “for curbing Iran’s regional aggression or nuclear ambitions.” “Either one could be used to authorize what they did,” said Rep. Mike D. Rogers (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, approving of the rationale.
The letter asks the administration to release a comprehensive, unclassified explanation to the American public, and is co-signed by several House Democratic committee leaders, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.). “Absurd,” Connolly said of the 2002 AUMF, which, he argued, “of course had nothing to do with Iran.” He said several others said Congress should “absolutely” move forward with the war powers resolution.
It is unclear, however, when the chambers may move ahead with such a vote.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wrote in a letter to her colleagues on Sunday that the House would vote this week on a war powers resolution to restrain Trump’s actions against Iran. But the House has yet to unveil such legislation, or announce a schedule for the preliminary, procedural steps that would need to take place before House Democrats could pass such a resolution over objections from the Republican minority.
In the Senate, Democrats will be able to insist early next week on a floor vote for Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) war powers resolution, which he filed last Friday. Yet the House and Senate would have to pass the same measure to send it to Trump’s desk — presuming Senate Democrats would muster enough Republican support to get it through that chamber.