Murphy on Trump’s Illegal War with Iran: the Senate Must Debate an Authorization for the Use of Military Force

WASHINGTON-U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to support U.S. Senator Tim Kaine's (D-Va) War Powers Resolution, while urging his colleagues to force President Trump to fulfill his constitutional obligations and seek an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iran.

Murphy slammed the Trump administration for the deadly chaos unleashed across the Middle East through a war Trump unilaterally provoked without the consent of Congress or the American people: "Six Americans have already died for an illegal war that no one in this country wants. Nine hundred to a thousand people in the region have died. U.S. embassies all over the region are under attack. Thousands of Shia Muslims in Pakistan right now are protesting - a Shia insurgency targeting the United States in the works. Iranian missile and drone attacks have hit targets as far away as Cyprus. Oil prices up by 9%. Gasoline prices at their largest one-day increase in 20 years. Natural gas prices up 45%. The region is in chaos. American consumers are paying the price - and for what? We still don't even know the reason for this war."

He reminded his Republican colleagues of the lost lives and resources in the U.S. 's decades-long pursuit of regime change in the Middle East: "We watched as thousands of American soldiers died in Iraq, in Afghanistan. We listened to Donald Rumsfeld say that the Iraq war would be over in five days, five weeks, maybe five months. It created an insurgency inside the Middle East that we are still dealing with today. Twenty years in Afghanistan: a mismanaged war from the start. The Taliban is back in charge. We ran planes over Libya to release the people from captivity imposed upon them by Gaddafi, only to unleash a new civil war that killed thousands upon thousands. It is amazing to me that my Republican colleagues refuse to learn lessons. It is amazing to me that my Republican colleagues refuse to listen to the American people who do not want American soldiers and American lives and their taxpayer dollars wasted on endeavors in the Middle East that are going to make things worse, not better."

Despite Trump's promises of "freedom" to the Iranian people, Murphy made clear Trump has zero plans to support democracy in Iran: "I was in the briefing with my Republican colleagues. I don't think any of us left that briefing believing that the American military was going to ride to the rescue of the Iranian people when they arrived in the streets to protest for freedom. You can't support a people's revolution from the air, only ground forces could support and protect the Iranian people when they show up in the squares of that nation, protesting for democracy. But I'm telling you that it looks like the plan is to leave the Iranian people hanging out to dry. Because, if all we are doing is dropping bombs on targeted sites inside Iran, if we are not actually involved in regime change - and by the way, we have been told over and over again by this administration that we are not going to quibble over who runs Iran next, even if it ends up being a hardline government - then we are goading the Iranian people out onto the streets with the implicit promise that we will be there with them, but with the decision made behind closed doors that we will not."

Murphy emphasized Americans do not support Trump's war and Congress has a constitutional responsibility to represent their interests by debating the authorization of military force: "President Trump was elected in part because he promised he wasn't going to get the United States involved in another Middle Eastern war. People took him seriously, and now he's gotten us involved in the most significant new conflict in the region in decades… I'm supportive of Senator Kaine's resolution, but it is not an authorization of military force. Our most sacred obligation as a Congress is to authorize war, and a president is prohibited by the Constitution and by the statutes of the United States from entering war without that authorization."

He continued, demanding the Senate stop business as usual to take up a debate on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): "I frankly believe that we shouldn't proceed with other business until we get a commitment to have a debate on an authorization of military force. I don't think it would pass. I think it's easier for some of our colleagues to come up with some procedural justification to vote against a war powers resolution than it is to put their name on a proactive declaration of war. So I want that debate. I think the Senate has to demand that debate. I think our legacy will be soured as a body if we let this - the most significant military action in the Middle East since the Iraq War - persist without using whatever leverage we have to have a debate on this floor."

Murphy concluded, emphasizing the costs of this war on the American people warrant a true debate through an AUMF: "This war is going to cost trillions of dollars. That means no money to lower your health care premiums, no money to fix your kid's school, because all the money is going to go to billion dollar defense companies who profit off of endless war. This is a disaster, and it's made more of a disaster because we're not going to actually debate an authorization of military force. This is not a substitute for that debate, and I think all of my Democratic colleagues agree we should not sugarcoat this. This is already a disaster of epic proportions, and I'm just going to tell you it is likely to get worse."

A full transcript of Murphy's remarks is available below.

MURPHY:

Mr. President, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans have learned nothing from decades of American hubris in the Middle East, believing that US troops, US planes, US guns and US bombs could fundamentally change realities in a far off land.

Democrats have learned our lesson. We watched as thousands of American soldiers died in Iraq, in Afghanistan. We listened to Donald Rumsfeld say that the Iraq war would be over in five days, five weeks, maybe five months. It created an insurgency inside the Middle East that we are still dealing with today. Twenty years in Afghanistan: a mismanaged war from the start. The Taliban is back in charge. We ran planes over Libya to release the people from captivity imposed upon them by Gaddafi, only to unleash a new civil war that killed thousands upon thousands. It is amazing to me that my Republican colleagues refuse to learn lessons. It is amazing to me that my Republican colleagues refuse to listen to the American people who do not want American soldiers and American lives and their taxpayer dollars wasted on endeavors in the Middle East that are going to make things worse, not better.

I heard my friend Senator Graham in his analysis of the Ayatollah. I agree with him. But not everything is World War II. Not every effort at regime change works. In fact, regrettably, World War II, and our operations against Hitler are the exception, not the norm. Whether it be in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Syria, or Libya - over and over again - trillions of dollars in American taxpayer money has been spent to try to create regime change, and we have been frustrated and denied in those efforts, and we have lost lives in that process.

When are we going to learn? And, as to the message that we are sending the Iranian people? I was in the briefing with my Republican colleagues. I don't think any of us left that briefing believing that the American military was going to ride to the rescue of the Iranian people when they arrived in the streets to protest for freedom. You can't support a people's revolution from the air, only ground forces could support and protect the Iranian people when they show up in the squares of that nation, protesting for democracy. But I'm telling you that it looks like the plan is to leave the Iranian people hanging out to dry. Because, if all we are doing is dropping bombs on targeted sites inside Iran, if we are not actually involved in regime change - and by the way, we have been told over and over again by this administration that we are not going to quibble over who runs Iran next, even if it ends up being a hardline government - then we are goading the Iranian people out onto the streets with the implicit promise that we will be there with them, but the decision made behind closed doors that we will not.

Six Americans have already died for an illegal war that no one in this country wants. Nine hundred to a thousand people in the region have died. U.S. embassies all over the region are under attack. Thousands of Shia Muslims in Pakistan right now are protesting - a Shia insurgency targeting the United States in the works Iranian missile and drone attacks have hit targets as far away as Cyprus. Oil prices up by 9%. Gasoline prices at their largest one-day increase in 20 years. Natural gas prices up 45%. The region is in chaos. American consumers are paying the price - and for what? We still don't even know the reason for this war.

Half the administration is out there saying, 'well, Israel pulled us in.' I hear my friend, Senator Graham, saying that this was a war of choice. But half the administration is saying it wasn't, saying that Iran was going to attack, and the only reason that we got involved was because Israel was going to attack, and the only reason we got involved was because we feared the blowback from Iran. We were dragged into the world, into the war, by Bibi Netanyahu. Others like Senator Graham and sometimes President Trump, say no, America decided on our own to enter this war. But then, for what are we engaged? Engaged in regime change, or not? If you aren't engaged in regime change, why did you take out the Ayatollah and all of those who are surrounding him? That clearly is a signal you want regime change.

Are we going after their nuclear program or not? We all know that air power alone cannot eliminate their nuclear capacity. And if the goal is not regime change, and we accept that new hardline leadership is going to take over in Iran, then that is a recipe for perpetual war, because the only way that you will be able to destroy their capacity to make missiles and drones is to be permanently running jets overhead and constantly bombing the new sites that the hardline regime sets up. That's endless war. That's trillions of dollars. And for what if, at the end of this engagement, there is harder-line leadership in charge of Iran than at the beginning? And why do we do it if at the end of this process, because we won't go in with ground forces, the nuclear program still exists? Why did we do it if we're going to hang the Iranian people out to dry and we aren't going to get their back when they stand up against the regime? Why did we do it?

The first several days of this conflict have been criminally incompetent, shifting rationales for the war. No plan to get American assets protected, to get Americans out of the region, shifting explanations for what the purpose of the war is, and very mixed messages to the Iranian people.

History tells us that an air campaign alone will never be successful in toppling a despotic regime, in fact, without, let me caveat that, without the serious threat of a ground invasion, history in fact, tells us that what is most likely to happen is that it hardens the resolve of the existing regime, that it ends up in even worse, more provocative, more dangerous, leadership taking hold. President Trump seemed to think out loud in comments he made yesterday - he was asked what the worst case scenario was, and as if it had just occurred to him for the first time, he said, 'Yeah, I guess the worst case scenario would be that, you know, we do all this bombing, we spend a trillion dollars, a whole bunch of lives get lost, and it ends up with the Iranians choosing even harder-line leadership that are more provocative and dangerous and deadly in the region.'

That's not the worst case scenario. That's the most likely scenario, and the idea that it's just occurring to him that this thing may go off the rails, as almost every other engagement in the region has over the last several decades should be stunning to all of you. The alternative, then, is a ground invasion, which no one in this country wants - no one in this country wants. That would kill tens of thousands of Americans. Yeah, it might end up with you being able to prop up a democratic regime. You might actually be able to get the nuclear program with a ground invasion, but that's tens of thousands of Americans dead in the process.

Air campaign: proven to be ineffective to carry out the goals that have been articulated by the administration. Ground invasion: deadly, impossible to rally the American people around. This is a no-win strategy. It's a no-win strategy, and the cost of the American people is substantial: Higher prices. Americans dead. And frankly, just a president distracted, a president who seems to care more about running Venezuela and dropping bombs on Iran than he does care about the American people.

So I know many of my Republican colleagues, including the last speaker, have been historically incredibly optimistic about the difference that the American military can make in the Middle East with zero evidence of that to be the case. President Trump was elected in part because he promised he wasn't going to get the United States involved in another Middle Eastern war. People took him seriously, and now he's gotten us involved in the most significant new conflict in the region in decades.

Let me say one final thing: I'm supportive of Senator Kaine's resolution, but it is not an Authorization of Military Force. Our most sacred obligation as a Congress is to authorize war, and a president is prohibited by the Constitution and by the statutes of the United States from entering war without that authorization. I am glad we are having this debate, but it is not a substitute for an authorization of military force, even if it fails - that does not give the president legal permission to carry out this endeavor.

Senator Graham held up a poster in which he showed that there were 130 different occasions in which various presidents of the United States have engaged in military actions overseas without the consent of Congress. That is true, but that doesn't mean that it's legal or constitutional if your neighbor breaks into your house 130 times in a row. That doesn't mean that it's suddenly permissible by law. In fact, the outrage gets more acute and more serious as the brazen lawlessness and unconstitutional actions of an administration get more regular. We need to authorize this war.

I frankly believe that we shouldn't proceed with other business until we get a commitment to have a debate on an Authorization of Military Force, I don't think it would pass. I think it's easier for some of our colleagues to come up with some procedural justification to vote against a war powers resolution than it is to put their name on a proactive declaration of war. So I want that debate. I think the Senate has to demand that debate. I think our legacy will be soured as a body if we let this, the most significant military action in the Middle East since the Iraq War, persist without using whatever leverage we have to have a debate on this floor.

It is really hard to - I'll wrap up. I know I have colleagues on the floor who want to speak. It's really hard to encapsulate in one speech, how dangerous, how inane, how illegal, how ill-planned this war with Iran is, especially just after the first few days, we are likely going to end up with a worse Iranian regime. At the end, we're telling the Iranian people to rise up on the streets, but we have no plan to support them. If they do, we cannot win an air campaign alone to take out their nuclear program. It's buried underground. We cannot, with an air campaign, take out their missile and drone program unless we're basically ready to bomb Iran permanently. That's a 'Trillion Dollar War' that lasts years. We aren't prepared to do the thing that would end the regime and take out their nuclear program - a ground invasion - because, of course, the cost of that would be thousands of American lives.

So worse people take over in the end than the Ayatollah. We don't end their nuclear program. We don't end their weapons program. We leave the Iranian people out to dry and at what cost? Oil and gas prices are spiking. Grocery and household item[s] won't be far behind. A half a dozen families are about to bury their dead children, and the military tells us that there's going to be a lot more casualties to come. This war is going to cost trillions of dollars. That means no money to lower your health care premiums, no money to fix your kid's school, because all the money is going to go to billion-dollar defense companies who profit off of endless war. This is a disaster, and it's made more of a disaster because we're not going to actually debate an authorization of military force. This is not a substitute for that debate, and I think all of my Democratic colleagues agree we should not sugarcoat this. This is already a disaster of epic proportions, and I'm just going to tell you, it is likely to get worse.