US Congress criticizes Trump for readiness to launch hostilities against Iran without approval

45
US Senate Republicans opposed the outbreak of immediate hostilities against Iran.





The possible war of the United States and its allies with Iran in response to the attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, although it remains on the agenda, is nevertheless considered by the American establishment with great caution. Some of the republican senators opposed the adoption of hasty decisions.

Secret services are still evaluating.

Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters. Some of her colleagues also called for restraint.

The administration of the White House, it seems, has not yet decided finally what actions it should take, and is trying to balance diplomacy with new conversations about military operations. Echoing U.S. President Donald Trump’s warning earlier this week, Vice President Mike Pence said US forces are ready for action if necessary.

As the president said yesterday, “it certainly seems” that Iran was behind these attacks. Our intelligence community is working hard at this very hour to provide evidence of this.

- said Pence. At the same time, he noted that Trump does not want a war with Iran or anyone else. In a meeting with senators, the vice president said the goal is to "restore the deterrence effect" in relation to the Islamic Republic.

Meanwhile, United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went to Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) to discuss a possible response to what officials in Washington consider an Tehran-inspired attack.

In a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel, said the Constitution forbids the president from starting military action if America is not the first to be attacked.

The notion that the White House can wait for a foreign government to decide instead of abiding by the Constitution is outrageous. The administration should fully inform Congress, and if the president is considering military options, his first stop should be Capitol Hill, not Riyadh.

- said in a statement to Engel.

Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kane, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Forces committees, on Tuesday promised a vote to block military action against Iran if Trump acts without Congress’s prior consent.
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. HAM
    0
    18 September 2019 11: 42
    "... As the President said yesterday, 'definitely looks like' ...."

    Again "highley like" ... waiting for the tubes to be brought to the UN ..
    1. 0
      18 September 2019 11: 58
      Rather, they are waiting for Ivanka Trump (even if now she is no longer Ivanka, but somehow renamed in Hebrew there) will stamp her leg and remind about the need for statesmen to sometimes even have steel testicles.
      1. 0
        18 September 2019 12: 49
        Nevertheless, Trump, for 3 years of his presidency, did not start a single new war ... A dove of peace is just some !!!
        1. 0
          18 September 2019 14: 19
          Yes, he would be glad. but nothing - all the forces went to get out of the previous ones with a slightly ass ass. Even Colombia did not have enough strength - and there the army is weaker than in Iran.
          In short, there is no sense in fighting mattresses with Iran, and these screams cause a healthy laugh. Orient-orient, you can do a horseradish? Will you send me the permit?
          1. -1
            18 September 2019 14: 21
            If you wish, you can fight with Iran and Israel ... And when the United States was going to fight with Colombia ???
            1. +1
              18 September 2019 14: 23
              Tfu, Venezuela. And you can’t speak with Iran of Israel - the six-pointed ones ran their goosno for mattresses to substitute. And there’s no more infantry at all
            2. 0
              18 September 2019 15: 04
              Israel, with all the desire and all the possibilities (allies), is not in a position to fight with Iran, in any way at all, but it’s completely stupid to fight with Venezuela, everything will be decided by money over time, because capitalism. It is simply physically impossible to bring Iran to its knees, for the United States it will collapse the whole system, it will not be pulled for very many reasons, up to general protests in the USA itself, in general everything as always rests on money, therefore they will strangle to the end
  2. 0
    18 September 2019 11: 43
    I wonder if Trump will sit out without another "small victorious war", or will the familiar scheme repeat itself - a new American president, a new "hot" war?
    Tote worse than sports.
    In a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel, said the Constitution forbids the president from starting military action if America is not the first to be attacked.

    And when has America been stopped by its own Constitution since the days of the battleship Maine? In fact - before. There is no reason - you need to create, no problem! Good experience very big.
    1. 0
      18 September 2019 12: 13
      It seems that the Trump team is now weighing the pros and cons. It is not known who will win, hawks who advocate war and inflate snot with bubbles or military men who have at least some intelligence who really look at things. High price for oil or coffins Amer’s soldiers before the election. What will outweigh? Equation with many unknowns, Iran is determined and there will be no easy walk in Yugoslavia, how Russia and China will behave in this situation is also not known.
      1. 0
        18 September 2019 13: 28
        Moreover, if Iranian fanatics begin to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. Ivanka herself then tear off the trump testicles
    2. 0
      18 September 2019 13: 57
      America can easily say that the attack led to changes in financial markets, which can be seen as an attack on the US economy. Here is a reason for a real attack. "The law is that tongue ...".
  3. 0
    18 September 2019 11: 45
    If the Americans unleash a war against Iran, oil can jump up to 100 bucks or more. A global economic crisis may follow. And most of all, a crisis can hit the richest economy. That American deputies mandify. lol
    1. +1
      18 September 2019 11: 51
      On the contrary, such a price will again make shale oil profitable - which is certainly a plus. But Iran is still not horseradish from the mountain - this is a minus.
    2. 0
      18 September 2019 11: 54
      Quote: bessmertniy
      If the Americans unleash a war against Iran, oil can jump up to 100 bucks or more. A global economic crisis may follow. And most of all, a crisis can hit the richest economy.

      Nonsense.
      It is America that now AS NEVER and URGENTLY needs high oil prices so that the bubble of the "shale revolution" does not bent in the very near future. This is exactly what will mark the beginning of the crisis. Well that is high prices are not needed, they are needed - above average. In order to support our shale workers, but also not to allow both Iran and Russia to turn around (all the more so since Europe is already serious about lifting anti-Russian sanctions, if not on paper, then in practice - quiet cooperation is also being conducted with Iran to overcome official sanctions) .
      1. -1
        18 September 2019 12: 12
        Shale gas production should not be increased for two days. The shales are now blown away, and they need time to recover. In such a situation, Trump's sharp military movements will hurt the business.
        1. +2
          18 September 2019 12: 45
          Quote: bessmertniy
          Shale gas production should not be increased for two days. The shales are now blown away, and they need time to recover. In such a situation, Trump's sharp military movements will hurt the business.

          Forgetting America’s strategic oil reserves in storage. They are really jammed to the eyeballs. To such an extent that America is getting out of its way to impose not only its own LNG, but also the condensate on Europe. But here is a very technical topic, without at least a basic understanding of the oil refining process (which most people, including those in HE, do not know), it is very easy to draw wrong conclusions.
          Why do you think America pressed Venezuela so blatantly? So what's on the brink of a foul? Not only because Venezuela has the richest oil reserves on the other side of the ball. The point is that Venezuelan oil is "heavy", and "shale" (this is a wrong name, but since it has taken root and is mentioned everywhere, it’s okay) ... In short, shale oil is basically so-called gas condensate , super light oil. And in order for America's refineries to process it, it MUST be refined with heavy oil. Well that is as, in everyday language, we have a boob of water and a bottle of medical 96-degree alcohol. The task is to swell successfully. At the same time, do not throw back your hooves and get maximum pleasure in the process. Of course, it is necessary to add alcohol with water, trying to follow the precepts of the great Mendeleev, getting, if possible, something close to 40 degrees. So it is with the States. Their refineries are also designed for a very specific composition of raw materials (besides, a lot of fuel cannot be expelled from the condensate - and it will be specific, gasoline-kerosene, but diesel fuel and fuel oil are almost impossible - but you need EVERYTHING and MORE). That is why, by the way, Brent and Urals grades are in great demand on the market - they are also quite heavy grades of oil, with a lot of sulfur. For only by adding these does the cracking process become profitable - i.e. there are even more end products than the original oil (and with one light oil, there will be so-called shrinking, reduction).
          Well, in fact, I’m even exaggerating it, if you are interested in the topic - read it here (it’s written very well, but it’s lurk, and therefore it can cause the template to break with its presentation style, and, yes, you’ll hardly see it without a proxy, etc. K. Roskomnadzor):
          http://lurkmore.to/Сланцевая_революция

          In short, this is all to the fact that America does not need a quick restart of the oil shale, it has this oil shale - even if it’s gotten dirty at the moment, it doesn’t know what to do (it heavy oil is needed to provide oil shale). But the industry must be saved now, because storage facilities tend to be empty. And if the shale workers give up completely, investors for the second time in this black hole by the loss of dibs will no longer tuck in.
        2. 0
          18 September 2019 12: 50
          Who blew them away? They have technologies, and they can both reduce and increase the number of drilling rigs. The reserves have been explored and delineated. It was during the USSR that more than ten years could pass from the beginning of exploration to industrial exploitation. And now all this is happening quickly in Russia. Example: VANKOR.
          1. +2
            18 September 2019 14: 26
            This is the advantage of shale oil: a well can be sharply mothballed in a day, and then restarted in a couple of days. Oil workers do not buy equipment, but rent it.
            Flexibly. The price drops - the well is shut down, equipment is being handed over. The price is rising - work again.
            1. +1
              18 September 2019 16: 59
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Flexibly. The price drops - the well is shut down, equipment is being handed over. The price is rising - work again.

              And everything would be fine on paper and in theory, but the debit of a shale well falls "by half past five" not just quickly, but VERY quickly. Because any shale well is such a small bubble. Plus, it does not add simple tightness, even more cheap and poisonous surfactants have to be injected.
              And if work on such a bubble was interrupted somewhere in the middle or more of its "life cycle", then reopening the well often simply does not make sense. More hassle than good.
              1. 0
                18 September 2019 17: 06
                Maybe ... but they've completely mastered horizontal drilling. "Bubble" shine through thoroughly. The uploads are very accurate. The production cost has dropped several times over 15 years.
                And the shale oil fields in Texas are huge. And they don’t know where to put gas. All and all will be exported when they complete the infrastructure and reach the gas pipelines to the Atlantic coast.
                1. 0
                  18 September 2019 17: 16
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  And the shale oil fields in Texas are huge.

                  Oh well. I do not accept on faith, because I already know - yes, everything is correct. Although in Europe, shale is dofiga and more. But do not drill, for now. Why do you think? And here is why:

                  That's about such an ass, the whole ecosphere is transformed over a long distance from shale sites. Europe (where ALREADY hardly each other is sitting on their heads) is not ready for this yet.
                  On gas - a separate conversation. Probably I will not say anything yet. I only note once again that for America, shale and gas are often almost equivalent things, because most wells produce condensate (i.e., ultra-light oil and gas). Previously, side gas was stupidly simply burned EVERYWHERE. Now they are already more careful. Where legislation allows, they try to collect it.

                  When the Fat Polar Fox arrives, it goes without saying that Europe will send all moratoria and the protection of nature to one place. It is the matter of time. The new iPhone is more expensive than some hares, foxes or voles there.
                  1. 0
                    18 September 2019 17: 26
                    Your photo, I suspect, refers to the early years of the "shale revolution". Now local authorities and environmentalists do not allow such an outrage. They are drilled in one place, and then, like in the subway, there are horizontal tunnels at a depth. But with normal mining, the landscape is also dull.
                    In some ways, you are right: in Israel, too, you have found a hefty field (not on the shelf) of shale oil, but you have been banned from developing it. Although for us it would be for hundreds of years.
                    1. +1
                      18 September 2019 17: 37
                      Well, that's more "civilized". This is just a more or less modern Barrett.
                      One fig - ecology goes through the forest (from which on the deposits one fig is disposed of in the first place, if he, the forest, accidentally turned up there):

                      As for me - one garbage. Especially if you download with cheap and toxic surfactants.
                      But in general - well, it's me about Israel - a very valuable find. If during the Third World (hot) Arab world does not bother you, then really just a saving straw will be for a couple of decades.
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Although for us it would be for hundreds of years.

                      About hundreds ... heh. Remember the famous Gates

                      How many GIGAIs the byte of RAM right now on your computer? ^ _ ^
                      1. 0
                        19 September 2019 07: 53
                        For the sake of interest, you can ride around the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug and the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, there are still many places where spilled oil can be extracted openly.
  4. 0
    18 September 2019 11: 53
    All for the sake of ... resources and money that you can earn on them!
  5. +1
    18 September 2019 11: 57
    Now they will think for a long time how to get around the constitution, even F. Roosevelt, at one time, had to rack his brains for a very long time on this subject. And Roosevelt's head was hoo! Not a couple of the present, heads of cabbage.
  6. +1
    18 September 2019 11: 59
    If America needs to, they will come up with any reason for the war, and put it on their own constitution and on the UN.
    But it is unlikely that they themselves will fight, with the hands of "allies" (in fact, vassals).
    1. +1
      18 September 2019 12: 15
      In-vo, now the most trump card moment for the USA to lower the Saudis to Iran. At the same time, also warm your hands on additional military supplies.
    2. +1
      18 September 2019 12: 41
      In the States it is not customary to "put" on your constitution, they have the same one for more than one hundred years. If you need to make corrections: do. And so, to "put", there is no such thing.
  7. -2
    18 September 2019 12: 01
    There were pictures of falling into huge tanks at this refinery.
    All cruise missiles and drones together hit the target from the north-west (some broke through tanks without causing fires).
    And the position of the Hussites is in the south of the plant. belay
    1. +1
      18 September 2019 12: 17
      And that drones could not maneuver. In fact, the Hssites will only benefit if the Saudis cling to Iran. It will only make it easier for them.
      1. 0
        18 September 2019 12: 24
        The Hussites are part of the general Sunni Shiite religious war. Front of Iran on the Arabian Peninsula.
        In Yemen and part of Saudi Arabia professes a Shiite version of Islam. Iran began supplying them with weapons from the sea several years ago.
      2. -1
        18 September 2019 12: 44
        And how will it be easier for them if Iran stops supplying them with weapons? Camel and donkey "cakes" in the Saud will be thrown?
    2. 0
      18 September 2019 13: 37
      Quote: voyaka uh
      There were pictures of falling into huge tanks at this refinery.
      All cruise missiles and drones together hit the target from the north-west (some broke through tanks without causing fires).
      And the position of the Hussites is in the south of the plant. belay

      If so, then the state of air defense of Saudi Arabia raises even more questions. It turns out that the strikers at the strategic target of the Kyrgyz Republic went unnoticed by the main enemy of the Saudis, at which the density of air defense forces should have been the highest.
  8. +1
    18 September 2019 12: 03
    of course, a great deal is likely to be almost certain that there are more than a little more than a little more .. thought US President D. Trump.
  9. +1
    18 September 2019 12: 04
    As the president said yesterday, “it certainly seems” that Iran was behind these attacks. Our intelligence community is working hard at this very hour to provide evidence of this.
    But in real life it may turn out that this is again another provocative CIA operation to attack Iran laughing Isn't that why the "Patriots" worked well, absolutely nothing, there was simply no task to shoot down these missiles or UAVs ??? Or is everything American a complete d ... mo ??? laughing ...
  10. -1
    18 September 2019 12: 10
    Saudis will tire of swallowing dust in the event of US aggression. If it will be a limited blow. If a full-fledged war, dust will swallow all swallow.
  11. +1
    18 September 2019 12: 10
    As the president said yesterday, “it certainly seems” that Iran was behind these attacks. Our intelligence community is working hard at this very hour to provide evidence of this.

    - said Pence.


    Colin Power advises.
    1. +1
      18 September 2019 14: 18
      Are you clintonitis? You have omitted the most important part of Trump’s phrase where he clearly indicates that he is not going to fight and defiantly gave Saudi the opportunity to declare war on Iran itself. And, they say, then, the United States will help. Knowing full well that the Saudis will sap.
  12. 0
    18 September 2019 12: 38
    US Congress criticizes Trump for readiness to launch hostilities against Iran without approval

    So are they against or want to indicate their significance?
  13. +1
    18 September 2019 14: 17
    Written by Clintonitis? Tram made it clear that he was not going to fight and defiantly gave Saudi the opportunity to declare war on Iran itself. And, they say, then, the United States will help. Knowing full well that the Saudis will sap. But the author of the article only picked up a cry of clintonite intended for an internal audience and accusing Trump of what he did not and does not want to do. The usual liberal reception.
  14. 0
    18 September 2019 14: 37
    Come on Trump: the global oil market deficit is more than 25% and the price per barrel is under 200, Israel in ruin along with Saudi Arabia, all US military bases in the Middle East are destroyed - the Persian Gulf in mines, the United States and allies in full fungal Russia’s budget in chocolate - fourfold replenishment of the budget.
  15. 0
    18 September 2019 16: 30
    and the establishment (a bunch of Jewish super-baggage) already doesn’t want to ask a certain UN or is it up to them that at least there is such a desk? and a handful of Jews are well aware that they have not yet been able to hang Assad
  16. +1
    18 September 2019 16: 38
    Quote: Vadim237
    Let's start trump: the global deficit in the oil market is more than 25% and the price per barrel under 200. Russia's budget in chocolate is fourfold replenishment of the budget.

    It would be like putting surpluses from oil into a bottle, but all prices, not limited to gas, will rise three times. Rent, groceries, transportation, etc.
    1. 0
      18 September 2019 23: 07
      They will not grow - but the ruble will get stronger up to 30 rubles per dollar.