Iran

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here to speak this afternoon about the conflict involving Iran and more specifically, the role of Congress within it.

At the outset, I want to reiterate something that I think gets lost in these discussions. The fact of the matter is, the Iranian regime is not an abstract adversary of America or anyone who supports free people and a more peaceful world.

For 47 years, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has brutalized their own people in the name of preserving the power of their Supreme Leader. Protestors and dissenters are met with violence, imprisoned, and murdered in cold blood.

At the same time, that same regime, through its proxies and networks, has killed thousands of Americans over the years. They have empowered groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shia militias in Iraq to orchestrate significant attacks that have destabilized the region.

There is no doubt that the Iranian people would be better without the Islamic Republic of Iran. There is no doubt that the world would be a safer place without the regime spreading terror around the world.

We now find our Nation at war with Iran, and I am not here to relitigate how we got into this conflict. The fact of the matter is, we are in it. But we owe it to our servicemembers and the Americans who are feeling the economic impacts of this war--we owe them a clear, thoughtful, rational plan for what comes next.

Some 2 months later, the regime retains the ability to strike across the region. They continue to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. And while the administration may point to ongoing negotiations, events on the ground and the rhetoric coming out of Tehran tell a different story.

If the United States steps back abruptly and prematurely, we almost certainly leave their critical capabilities intact, we risk a new set of leaders who are even more radicalized against us, and we all but invite retaliation against American military forces, our allies, and the American people.

Those are not risks I am willing to take. But the answer is not a blank check for another endless war, nor is it open-ended authority for the administration, with no guardrails, no oversight from Congress, and no clearly defined mission. The answer, I believe, relies on careful, deliberate use of congressional power. And this is where I think we are falling short, because we are approaching the 60-day mark under the War Powers Act.

So what comes next?

The Constitution is clear on this point: Congress holds the power to declare war and authorize the use of military force. And yes, the President must have flexibility to respond to emergencies and imminent threats, and he does. And he does. But those are not ongoing military campaigns like we find ourselves currently mired in.

In such conflicts, the President and the administration must explicitly state their goals, their plans, and the metrics for success, and if we don't press them to define those parameters, we may risk repeating history.

One of the clearest lessons from the War on Terror is that the failure to think beyond the initial phase of military operations can lock us into a conflict that becomes more lengthy, more deadly, more costly, and more difficult to unwind, which brings me to a concern I have had from the outset of this conflict, and that is the lack of clarity from the administration, from their public statements to the classified briefings we receive as Members of Congress.

When American servicemembers are deployed and lives are on the line, the administration owes Congress and the American people a straight answer about what we are trying to achieve. That is why I have been working with several of my colleagues on an authorization for the use of military force.

This is an authorization, but it is also a restraint. It is not a blank check. It would not grant open-ended authority. Instead, it would seek to establish a framework requiring the President to come to Congress with clearly defined political and military objectives. It would require metrics for success, notice of any changes in objectives, and exit criteria. It would ultimately ensure that Congress is engaged.

AUMFs should precede wars, not be enacted in their midst.

That wasn't a choice for us here, but it cannot be used as an excuse to abandon our responsibilities. We are supposed to represent, engage, debate, vote, and when and where necessary, restrain the Executive. That is why we are supposed to be here in Congress, and that matters most in times of war.

We have already lost servicemembers in the conflict--and God rest their souls--and there is still danger, and more servicemembers will almost certainly be put in harm's way even during an economic blockade.

Now, I think there is a fair and legitimate question that some may be asking. We are looking at an AUMF. We just had a vote on a War Powers Resolution. Actually, we have had several votes on War Powers Resolution, and I have opposed each of them, including the one that we just took today.

So why AUMF and not a War Powers Resolution? The War Powers Resolution we have voted on would have required the removal of U.S. forces from active hostilities. They would have halted operations that were already underway without any framework for what comes next, and that is just something I can't support.

Iran has been targeting United States personnel, our allies, and our partners across the region. I don't believe that we can responsibly tie the hands of our military or walk away in the middle of an ongoing fight without a plan.

We saw in Afghanistan in 2021 the dangers of withdrawing without a strategy. The President should have come to Congress before engaging in military action at this scale that we are seeing now, and that, regrettably, did not happen. So we are now in a position where Congress must step in--not to abruptly end operations but to define them. And that is the difference here.

The War Powers Resolution has attempted to stop this conflict without establishing a path forward. An AUMF recognizes the reality that the U.S. military is already engaged and provides structure and clarity by requiring the administration to define what they are trying to achieve and the means of achieving it. It requires reporting to Congress, and it brings transparency where little has existed over the past 2 months.

Now, I am not introducing an AUMF today, but if we pass this 60-day mark from the start of hostilities with still a lack of a credible plan and information from the administration, it is something that I intend to introduce once the Senate reconvenes here.

So I want to close by saying as plainly as I can: I stand firmly behind our troops. As part of that, I do not take their deployment lightly, and I do not accept that we should engage in open-ended military action without clear direction or accountability.

Congress has a role. Congress has to step up and fulfill that role, that obligation that the Constitution assigns to us. We owe it to the men and women who are serving our great Nation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source