Democratic Congressman says it's time to tie Trump's hands when it comes to Iran

Read Story Transcript

Democrats in the U.S. are trying to curb President Donald Trump's authority to launch further attacks on Iranian targets after the assassination of the country's top military leader.

Congress, which has the sole power to declare war, has complained that Trump did not provide advance notice of his airstrike in Baghdad that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and nine others. 

Democrats are now trying to pass a resolution to use their congressional war powers to force the Trump administration to stop military action against Iran within 30 days. They are also trying to force the president to seek congressional approval before taking further military actions against the country.

While the resolution is likely to pass in the Democrat-controlled House, there's little indication the Republican-controlled Senate will break from their leader and make it law. 

California Congressman Ro Khanna is one of the Democrats leading the charge. Here is part of his conversation with As It Happens host Carol Off. 

At a time when Iran is vowing to retaliate against the United States, why are you trying to stay the president's hand?

The president's attacks were unconstitutional and has increased the risk of violence and put American's lives in danger.

We need to make sure that we are engaged in a ceasefire with Iran, that we restore diplomatic relations. The last thing we need to do is escalate into another full-blown war in the Middle East.

But it has escalated since this assassination. So given the state of affairs on the ground, is this really the time to have an action like this, when the president might need to take action and take it quickly?

The president always has the authority for self-defence, but that's not what happened in this situation. I mean, he cannot point to a location of an imminent attack. He did not point to the timing of an imminent threat. He has not explained why taking out senior Iranian leader like Soleimani was going prevent an attack, as opposed to taking down militias that may be on the ground.

So we are not restricting the president's right for self-defence. What we are saying is before you conduct another offensive strike in Iran or against Iranian cultural sites or against Iranian officials, he needs the authorization of Congress.

Whatever the motives are, the wisdom of this assassination might be, you're now in a situation where things are very heightened. And so given those conditions, is it not perhaps necessary, as Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is saying ... to have a united Congress, to have everyone come onside and not have a partisan approach to this, and support the president no matter what one thinks of the action itself?

Yes, it is time to have a united Congress, and that united Congress should vindicate the Article 1 rights of Congress, which is that it's Congress, and not the president, who decides on matters of war and peace.

Can you describe what this motion your party plans introduce this week ...[would] do and how would it restrain the president?

It would cut off any funding for the president to conduct an offensive strike in Iran or against Iranian officials. 

Again, it would do nothing to prevent the president or commanders on the ground from self-defence. Nobody is saying that if Iran was targeting an American soldier or American civilians or an American embassy, that American forces couldn't respond. Of course they could.

But what it would prevent is another assassination of a high-ranking Iranian military leader or official.

I mean, think about it. We don't go assassinate Kim Jong-un, even though he's a horrible leader in North Korea. We don't assassinate [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad, even though he's been responsible for chemical weapons and killing of numerous people.

The reason is we don't want to have a war. And so this would restrict the president's ability to escalate us into a war in Iran.

I want to ask you, from a political point of view, what support you have. The Washington Post is reporting that President Trump believes this conflict with Iran will boost his opportunities, his stakes in this year's election, and bolster the argument against impeaching him — that you don't want to be impeaching a president in the middle of a conflict or heightened tensions of this kind. So how worried are you that your efforts to check the president could actually strengthen his hand?

I don't share that view. The president certainly didn't campaign that way. He campaigned on ending our conflicts in the Middle East. He said that the Iraq war was a disaster. He promised the American people he would not get us into another war in the Middle East. And that's how he got support. 

So my view is he's miscalculating by thinking that another provocation or war is something that's going to be politically popular.

And if anything, it heightens the argument for impeachment. The concern for impeachment was that the president was compromising our national security with Ukraine. And I think when he's tweeting out about striking Iranian cultural sites, when he's taking actions without even notifying Congress, that increases people's concern about him exercising unilateral power and makes the argument for why we do need to impeach.

But President Trump is suggesting that Democrats are trying to paint General Soleimani as some kind of a hero. He is a man who supported [Syrian] President Bashar al-Assad as he killed his own people. He is somebody who [was] involved very much with Hezbollah, which had campaigns, ambushes, roadside bombs, suicide bombers, lots of civilians killed, and thwarted U.S. and coalition efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, he would appear as an enemy of the United States. So do Democrats look weak by not supporting President Trump in this effort?

No, we look like we are being wise and restrained. I mean, of course Soleimani has blood on his hands, and of course he's a bad actor. Of course he is responsible for American deaths. No one is questioning that.

But America doesn't go killing bad actors around the world. I mean, we're not going in trying to kill Kim Jong-un. We're not trying to kill Assad. We understand that we can't be the policemen of the world.

How hopeful are you that this conflict can be resolved diplomatically, as you've suggested?

I'm 100 per cent confident it can be resolved. I don't know if it can be resolved by the team that Trump has. 

It's the incompetence of this administration, it's their lack of foreign policy expertise, it's their disdain for foreign policy experts that give me concern.

Written by Sheena Goodyear with files from The Associated Press. Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.