Politics
Biblical Justifications and Real Bombs: The New Battle for Control of U.S. Foreign Policy
Rep. Thomas Massie’s bipartisan push to rein in unauthorized U.S. military strikes on Iran revives debate over presidential war powers, as Trump-era contradictions, biblical justifications, and media spin complicate America’s foreign entanglements.
But now, and against the informed advice of Tulsi Gabbard, Director of US National Intelligence, and without Congressional approval or debate, Washington and Jerusalem joined forces in military strikes against Iran—actions critics say Trump justified by false and misleading pretexts, and dam lies to boot.
Trump has also backpedaled on sending more arms to Ukraine, naturally claiming—as always—that they are for defensive purposes only.
Iran and Ukraine, with new foreign entanglements on the horizon, have plunged global affairs into fresh turmoil and raised renewed questions about the relevance of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a piece of legislation that few remembers, or have conveniently forgotten, that resulted from the quagmire of Vietnam and other so-called “police actions”.
For many Americans—particularly self-described “MAGA” voters who once clamored for an end to foreign entanglements like what happened with Biden in Ukraine—the sudden involvement in Iran is more than a bitter betrayal.
“If Trump were still in office, we wouldn’t be in this mess in Ukraine, and certainly not launching new wars,” so goes the often citied Trump’s related quote from the Biden years.
Yet memories of the 1973 War Powers Act—intended to restrict presidential authority to engage U.S. forces abroad without Congressional approval —have faded into political footnotes. Once heralded as a check on executive overreach, the once much touted restricting resolution now barely registers in public debate or history texts, as a footnote at best.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (also known as the War Powers Act) “is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.”
New Bipartisan “War Powers” Resolution
In response to Trump’s bombing of Iran, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has recently introduced a new bipartisan “War Powers” Resolution aimed squarely at halting “unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Under House rules, such resolutions gain privileged status and can reach the floor after just 15 days without committee action.
“The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States,” Rep. Massie asserted. “Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”
Joining Massie as co-lead sponsor is Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who echoed the call for congressional oversight. “No president should be able to bypass Congress’s constitutional authority over matters of war,” Khanna said.
“The American people do not want to be dragged into another disastrous conflict in the Middle East. I’m proud to stand with Rep. Massie on this bipartisan effort to ensure any military action against Iran receives proper authorization from Congress.”
As lawmakers push to reclaim their war-making prerogatives, public attention remains fixed on Tehran’s resilience. Despite sustained bombing campaigns, Iran’s leadership signals neither retreat nor surrender—casting doubt on the efficacy of military might and underscoring the enduring complexity of Middle Eastern geopolitics.
But Blame it all on the Bible!
Amid the clangor of congressional debate and regional posturing, an altogether different kind of rhetoric has entered the fray—one that invokes ancient scripture to justify modern geopolitics and war crimes. Senator Ted Cruz, whose recent interview with journalist Tucker Carlson devolved into a public embarrassment over his poor grasp of Middle Eastern geography and biblical text, has become emblematic of this trend.
Cruz asserted that “those who support Israel will be blessed,” citing Genesis 12:3—but the verse in question actually reads, “I will bless those who bless you [Abraham],” a promise that extends just as surely to Arabs, Persians and Palestinians and to any other successors of Abraham.
Such selective readings of holy writ reveal a deeper layer of hypocrisy: many allies are born-again Christians whose fervor for Israel dovetails uncomfortably with the lobbying power of AIPAC. Rather than reflecting genuine scriptural truths, their arguments often mirror the talking points of an influential pro-Israel apparatus, leaving little room for nuance or the complex realities of a multi-faith, multi-ethnic region.
Meanwhile, the New York Times and other leading outlets have embraced the administration’s narrative of “severe damage” to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Headlines proclaiming the Pentagon’s “success” in degrading Tehran’s enrichment capabilities echo former President Trump’s own triumphalist rhetoric—yet defense officials concede it is “too soon to say” whether Iran still retains any fissile material.
In practice, however, little evidence has emerged to confirm decisive blows: Tehran claims that most sensitive components were removed well in advance, and U.S. warnings reportedly allowed Iran to relocate equipment before the strikes.
For their part, many Iranians see their government not as an aggressor but as a nation compelled to defend itself after eight decades of Western intervention. From colonial carve-ups in the early 20th century to the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh, Iran’s modern history is dotted with foreign incursions that shape public perception to this day. Under those historical lenses, the latest airstrikes read less like strategic necessity and more like political theater—an echo of the manufactured consent that propelled the Iraq invasion in 2003.
As regional tensions hover on the brink of full-scale conflict, the memory of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan looms large. Those interventions, justified by shifting pretexts—from counter-terrorism to “humanitarian” motives—left millions dead, displaced countless more, and saddled ordinary Americans with trillions in debt. If history is any guide, the human and financial costs of yet another Middle Eastern quagmire will be borne not by policymakers or lobbyists, but by civilians on both sides of the divide—and by taxpayers who will foot the bill for decades to come.
Almost Most Certainly the Case!
As speeches from Jerusalem to Kyiv echo with near-identical refrains—warnings of existential threats, divine mandates, and the promise of heroic deliverance—one cannot help but suspect a single pen orchestrating the narratives. In Washington and Jerusalem, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s warnings of annihilation mirror President Zelensky’s appeals to save “our civilization,” each framed as a holy mission. Their language intertwines religious destiny with geopolitical urgency, blurring the line between genuine conviction and expertly crafted public relations.
Yet history reminds us that foreign meddling often boomerangs
Today’s Iranian regime—born of the CIA- and MI6-backed Operation Ajax in 1953, sharpened by the brutal tactics of the CIA-trained SAVAK, and forged in the 1979 Revolution—stands as a testament to unintended consequences. Should the United States—or any external power—overthrow Tehran’s leadership, the vacuum left behind could unleash forces far more volatile than those they seek to contain.
By contrast, a shake-up at the top in Israel, where elected officials enjoy greater institutional checks and a more pluralistic political culture, might open the door to meaningful reform rather than chaos.
Meanwhile, Israel itself finds its narrative coming apart at the seams as the result of relentless bombardment and political backlash. It shows that banning flight not only confined ordinary Israeli citizens to suffer the Iranian retaliation, while the wealthy and connected slip away, often with their second passports, and press restrictions and a new low in PR hide what is the true toll being inflicted by missiles falling on Tel Aviv and Haifa. As censorship tightens its grip, the world catches only glimpses of a society under siege—raising urgent questions about the price of perpetual conflict and the possibility of a new chapter in the region’s turbulent history.
Netanyahu, Zelensky, and Trump are proving to be the greatest enemies of their own people, an even greater threat than those who they claim are the real enemies. They need a reality check, look in a mirror and take a good, close up look at themselves, and then try to reflect on the blood on their hands, and ask “Who really benefits from all of this?”
Jeffrey K. Silverman is a freelance journalist and international development specialist, BSc, MSc, based for 30 years in Georgia and the former Soviet Union
No comments:
Post a Comment