The U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, defended on Tuesday at the Capitol the administration's decision under Donald Trump not to submit the military attack against Iran for a prior vote in Congress, amidst growing scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers.
In front of the press, Rubio was direct when asked why Congress members were not notified in advance.
“We cannot notify 535 members of Congress. Let them vote however they choose. There is no law that says we have to do that,” he asserted.
The head of U.S. diplomacy insisted that "there is no law requiring the president to ask for permission" to order a military operation like the one launched on Saturday against the Iranian regime.
Notification to the "Group of Eight"
Rubio assured that the White House did comply with the current legal procedures by informing the relevant legislative leaders.
“We did it. We notified the congressional leaders. We informed the Group of Eight twice. We have complied with the law 100%”, he stated.
He also added: "No law requires the president (...) No presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional. That said, we comply with the notifications 48 hours later."
He even compared the frequency of the current informational meetings with the previous administration.
"I have participated in more informational meetings of the Gang of Eight than in the four years of Biden. I was in the Gang of Eight. We comply with the law and we will continue to do so," he said.
The so-called Group of Eight is the legal mechanism through which the executive power can inform a select circle of Congressional leaders about highly classified intelligence matters.
It is composed of the leaders of the majority and minority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the chairpersons and senior members of the intelligence committees of both chambers, as outlined in Title 50 of the United States Code.
Under normal circumstances, the law requires the president to keep the intelligence committees fully informed about significant activities.
However, the same legal framework provides that, in "extraordinary circumstances," the president may limit notification to that smaller group when deemed essential to restrict information about a covert action.
"The hardest blows are yet to come."
Rubio's statements regarding the legality of the operation occurred in the context of a military offensive that, according to the Trump administration, aims to neutralize Iran's missile capabilities.
The Secretary of State warned that the campaign is not over: “I will not reveal the details of our tactical efforts, but the hardest hits are yet to come from the U.S. military. The next phase will be even more punishing for Iran than it is now.”
Rubio stated that the main objective is to eliminate Iran's ability to produce and deploy ballistic missiles and attack drones.
"Our mission and focus is the destruction of Iran's ballistic missile capability and their production, as well as the threat of global shipping," he stated.
Additionally, he reiterated the White House's argument that Tehran posed an "imminent threat" to the United States and its allies. He explained that the Department of Defense determined that waiting for an initial Iranian strike would have been more costly in terms of human lives.
"The War Department assessed that if we expected them to strike us first (...) then we would have suffered more losses and greater disaster," Rubio said.
He added, “The administration acted proactively and defensively to prevent greater harm. If we hadn't done so, there would have been some hearings in the Capitol about how we knew this was going to happen and did not take proactive measures to prevent loss of life.”
In his strategic assessment, he stated that the operation "had to happen" sooner or later.
"Iran would have crossed the immunity line in a year and would have short-range missiles and so many drones that no one would have been able to do anything about it because they would have held the world hostage," he stated.
Political debate in Washington
The offensive has sparked strong criticism among Democratic lawmakers, who question both the premise of an imminent threat and the decision not to seek formal authorization from Congress.
Senator Mark Warner, a member of the Intelligence Committee, stated that, according to the available information, "there was no imminent threat to the United States," and he argued that the president must justify why it was "so crucial" to initiate a war on his own accord.
Rubio, for his part, denied that regime change is the declared objective of Washington, despite the fact that U.S. and Israeli attacks have eliminated key figures in Iranian leadership.
"While we would love to see a new regime, the conclusion is that, regardless of who governs that country in a year, they will not have these ballistic missiles nor will they have these drones to threaten us. That is the objective of this mission," he emphasized.
He also acknowledged that there are currently no diplomatic exchanges with Tehran and did not rule out scenarios of greater escalation, although he downplayed the immediate possibility of a ground invasion.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump defended the offensive as “our last and best chance to strike (…) and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime”, also assuring that military operations are progressing faster than expected.
The debate over the limits of presidential power in times of war thus returns to the forefront of American politics, with an administration that claims to have acted within the legal framework and an opposition demanding more detailed explanations regarding the urgency and constitutionality of the decision.
Filed under: