nuclear site

WASHINGTON — Democratic efforts in the Senate to prevent President Trump from escalating his military confrontation with Iran fell short Friday, with Republicans blocking a resolution that marked Congress’ first attempt to reassert its war powers after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

The resolution, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, aimed to affirm that Trump should seek authorization from Congress before launching more military action against Iran. Asked Friday whether he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Trump said, “Sure, without question.”

The measure was defeated in a 53-47 vote in the Republican-held Senate. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans in opposition, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor.

Most Republicans have said Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Trump, and they backed his decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend without seeking congressional approval.

“Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements,” said Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.). “But we must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line.”

Democrats cast doubt on that justification, arguing that the president should have come to Congress first. They also said the president did not update them adequately, with Congress’ first briefings taking place Thursday.

“The idea is this: We shouldn’t send our sons and daughters into war unless there’s a political consensus that this is a good idea, this is a national interest,” Kaine said in a Thursday interview with the Associated Press. The resolution, Kaine said, wasn’t aimed at restricting the president’s ability to defend against a threat, but that “if it’s offense, let’s really make sure we’re making the right decision.”

In a statement after Friday’s vote, Kaine said he was “disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress” should be a part of a decision to go to war.

Democrats’ argument for backing the resolution centered on the War Powers Resolution, passed in the early 1970s, which requires the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”

Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Friday’s vote, Paul said he would back the resolution, saying that “despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end up proving to be a strategic failure.”

“It is unclear if this intervention will fully curtail Iran’s nuclear aspirations,” said Paul.

Trump is just the latest in a line of presidents to test the limits of the resolution — though he’s done so at a time when he’s often bristling at the nation’s checks and balances.

Trump on Monday sent a letter to Congress — as required by the War Powers Resolution — that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”

But after classified briefings with top White House officials this week, some lawmakers remain skeptical about how imminent the threat was.

“There was no imminent threat to the United States,” said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after Friday’s classified briefing.

“There’s always an Iranian threat to the world. But, I have not seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,” Himes said.

Meanwhile, nearly all Republicans applauded Trump’s decision to strike Iran. And for GOP senators, supporting the resolution would have meant rebuking the president at the same time they’re working to pass his major legislative package.

Kaine proposed a similar resolution in 2020 aimed at limiting Trump’s authority to launch military operations against Iran. Among the eight Republicans who joined Democrats in approving that resolution was Indiana Sen. Todd Young.

After Thursday’s classified briefing for the Senate, Young said he was “confident that Iran was prepared to pose a significant threat” and that, given Trump’s stated goal of no further escalation, “I do not believe this resolution is necessary at this time.”

“Should the Administration’s posture change or events dictate the consideration of additional American military action, Congress should be consulted so we can best support those efforts and weigh in on behalf of our constituents,” Young said in a statement.

Trump has said that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran is now in place. But he and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have verbally sparred in recent days, with the Iranian leader warning the U.S. not to launch future strikes on Iran.

White House officials have said they expect to restart talks soon with Iran, though nothing has been scheduled.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Leah Askarinam contributed to this report.

SEOUL — Since beginning his second term earlier this year, President Trump has spoken optimistically about restarting denuclearization talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, whom he met for a series of historic summits in 2018 and 2019 that ended without a deal.

“I have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un, and we’ll see what happens, but certainly he’s a nuclear power,” he told reporters at an Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in March.

Earlier this month, Trump attempted to send a letter to Kim via North Korean diplomats in New York, only to be rebuffed, according to Seoul-based NK News. And now, following the U.S. military’s strike on three nuclear facilities in Iran on Sunday, the chances of Pyongyang returning to the bargaining table have become even slimmer.

For North Korea, which has conducted six nuclear tests over the years in the face of severe economic sanctions and international reprobation — and consequently has a far more advanced nuclear program than Iran — many analysts say the lesson from Sunday is clear: A working nuclear deterrent is the only guarantor of security.

“More than anything, the North Korean regime is probably thinking that they did well to dig in their heels to keep developing their nuclear program,” said Kim Dong-yup, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul.

A TV screen at the Seoul Railway Station shows the launch of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile on Oct. 31.

(Lee Jin-man / Associated Press)

“I think this strike means the end of any sort of denuclearization talks or diplomatic solutions that the U.S. had in mind in the past,” he said. “I don’t think it’s simply a matter of worsened circumstances; I think the possibility has now gone close to zero.”

On Monday, North Korea’s foreign ministry condemned the U.S. strike on Iran as a violation of international law as well as “the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state,” according to North Korean state media.

“The present situation of the Middle East, which is shaking the very basis of international peace and security, is the inevitable product of Israel’s reckless bravado as it advances its unilateral interests through ceaseless war moves and territorial expansion, and that of the Western-style free order which has so far tolerated and encouraged Israeli acts,” an unnamed ministry spokesperson said.

Trump has threatened to attack North Korea before.

Early in Trump’s first term, when Pyongyang successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the U.S. West Coast., administration officials reportedly considered launching a “bloody nose” strike — an attack on a nuclear site or military facility that is small enough to prevent escalation into full-blown war but severe enough to make a point.

“Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely,” Trump wrote on social media in August 2017.

While it is still uncertain how much damage U.S. stealth bombers inflicted on Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo — and whether they have kneecapped Iran’s nuclear program, as U.S. officials have claimed — experts say the feasibility of a similar attack against North Korea is much smaller.

“North Korea has been plowing through with their nuclear program for some time, so their security posture around their nuclear facilities is far more sophisticated than Iran,” Kim Dong-yup said. “Their facilities are extremely dispersed and well-disguised, which means it’s difficult to cripple their nuclear program, even if you were to successfully destroy the one or two sites that are known.”

Kim Dong-yup believes that North Korea’s enrichment facilities are much deeper than Iran’s and potentially beyond the range of the “bunker buster” bombs — officially known as the GBU-57 A/B — used Sunday. And unlike Iran, North Korea is believed to already have 40 to 50 nuclear warheads, making large-scale retaliation a very real possibility.

A preemptive strike against North Korea would also do irreparable damage to the U.S.-South Korea alliance and would likely also invite responses from China and, more significantly, Russia.

A mutual defense treaty signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un last June states that the two countries “shall immediately provide military and other assistance” to the other if it “falls into a state of war due to armed invasion from an individual or multiple states.”

Yet talk of such an attack in Trump’s first term was soon replaced by what he has described as a friendship with Kim Jong Un, built over the 2018-19 summits, the first ever such meetings by a sitting U.S. president. Though the talks fell apart over disagreements on what measures North Korea would take toward disarmament and Trump’s reluctance to offer sanctions relief, the summits ended on a surprisingly hopeful note, with the two leaders walking away as pen pals.

An undated photo provided on Sept. 13 by the North Korean government shows its leader, Kim Jong Un, center, visiting what the country says is a facility for nuclear materials in an undisclosed location in North Korea.

(Associated Press)

In recent months, administration officials have said that the president’s goal remains the same: completely denuclearizing North Korea.

But the attack on Iran has made those old sticking points — such as the U.S. negotiating team’s demand that North Korea submit a full list of its nuclear sites — even more onerous, said Lee Byong-chul, a nonproliferation expert who has served under two South Korean administrations.

“Kim Jong Un will only give up his nuclear weapons when, as the English expression goes, hell freezes over,” Lee said. “And that alone shuts the door on any possible deal.”

Still, Lee believes that North Korea may be willing to come back to the negotiating table for a freeze — though not a rollback — of its nuclear program.

“But from Trump’s perspective, that’s a retreat from the terms he presented at the [2019] Hanoi summit,” he said. “He would look like a fool to come back to sign a reduced deal.”

While some, like Kim Dong-yup, the professor, argue that North Korea has already proven itself capable of withstanding economic sanctions and will not overextend itself to have them removed, others point out that this is still the United States’ primary source of leverage — and that if Trump wants a deal, he will need to put it on the table.

“Real sanctions relief is still valuable,” Stephen Costello, a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington-based think tank.

While he agrees that immediate denuclearization may be unrealistic, Costello has argued that even halting production of new fissile material, nuclear weapons and long-range missiles are “well worth ending nonmilitary sanctions,” such as those on energy imports or the export of textiles and seafood.

“Regardless of U.S. actions in the Middle East, the North Koreans would likely gauge any U.S. interest by how serious they are about early, immediate sanctions relief,” he said.

The attack on Iran will have other ramifications beyond Trump’s dealmaking with Kim Jong Un.

Military cooperation between North Korea and Iran, dating back to the 1980s and including arms transfers from North Korea to Iran, will likely accelerate.

Lee, the nonproliferation expert, said that the attack on Iran, which was the first real-world use of the United States’ bunker-buster bombs, may have been a boon to North Korea.

“It’s going to be a tremendous lesson for them,” he said. “Depending on what the total damage sustained is, North Korea will undoubtedly use that information to better conceal their own nuclear facilities.”