So could the third time be the charm? The United States and Iran are in Geneva for, yes, a third round of nuclear talks, which could end in a deal or with violence. They want to make a deal, but we haven't heard those secret words. We will never have a nuclear weapon. That's President Trump during Tuesday's State of the Union address. My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can't let that happen. I mean, I'm totally in favor of regime change, but I think you can't just announce it in one speech and then expect that everybody will line up behind you. I think this is a political mistake he may be about to make, but it's typical of the way he proceeds. This is John Bolton, who is now a vocal critic of President Trump. He once served as national security advisor during Trump's first term. He's also a former U.N. ambassador. And he told NPR that he didn't think Trump made a case for war to the American people because he thinks Trump is not even sure he wants war. I don't think Trump has necessarily made up his mind either what his objective is in a possible use of military force or what the quantum of that force would be. Meanwhile, not everyone in Congress is OK with the idea that President Trump could proceed with military action against Iran without first seeking the sign off of lawmakers. Consider this. Members of Congress have filed war powers resolutions in both the House and Senate to restrict President Trump from attacking Iran without congressional approval. We speak with one of the lawmakers pushing the resolutions, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. From NPR, I'm Elsa Chang. This message comes from WISE, the app for international people using money around the globe. You can send, spend, and receive in up to 40 currencies with only a few simple taps. Be smart. Get WISE. Download the WISE app today or visit WISE.com. T's and C's apply. This message comes from CBC. The cult queen of Canada from Uncover is a story about polarization and what happens when a small community becomes the testing ground for extremism in modern Canada Listen now wherever you get your podcasts Hey Lulu here Whether we are romping through science music politics technology or feelings we seek to leave you seeing the world anew. Radiolab adventures right on the edge of what we think we know. Wherever you get podcasts. It's Consider This from NPR. It's in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, where the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, to declare war. Of course, anyone versed in recent U.S. history will know that U.S. presidents have authorized plenty of military action without Congress first signing off. One timely example, last year the U.S. struck three nuclear sites in Iran, joining Israel in its fight against the country. Right now, the U.S. has massively built up military forces in the Middle East. And this week, it's conducting diplomatic talks with Iran. Members of Congress are trying to prevent President Trump from acting without congressional approval. And one of them is Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. Welcome back. Elsa, great to be with you. Thanks. Great to have you. So when do you expect to vote on this resolution? Elsa, it will happen early next week. Even as I sit here talking to you, it's being negotiated, but it will be in the first couple of days of next week when we're back in session Monday. Okay, but I have to ask because previous votes on war powers resolutions like over Venezuela, over last year's strikes on Iran, they have failed. Almost all Republicans have voted against them. So why does this moment feel any different to you? Well, first, whether they succeed or fail, we shouldn't be at war without a vote. And so members of Congress should be held accountable. Secondly, we learn, and particularly in the Venezuela vote, in the Senate, we actually got enough votes, Democrat plus some Republicans initially. And then a few Republicans got convinced to change their minds in some subsequent votes. But it changed the president's behavior. After the first vote, within a few hours, he canceled a second strike on Venezuela. And he also agreed finally to have a public hearing to send Secretary Rubio up to discuss what in fact was the mission, what were the goals, what would success look like. And so I very much learned from that effort, even though we ultimately were not successful, that forcing a vote and a debate on these matters brings it more to the public's attention where the public can decide whether a mission in the national interest and it can even change the behavior of the administration But I want to share a statement from a fellow Democrat This is Congressman Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, who's opposed to an equivalent war powers resolution in the House. And he writes, quote, this resolution would restrict the flexibility needed to respond to real and evolving threats and risks signaling weakness at a dangerous moment. What do you say to your colleague there about that? I'm on the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, and I'm in the classified facility all the time hearing about risks. And I hear nothing whatsoever about any risks right now that Iran poses to the United States that are at a sufficient level that we should allow a president to take our sons and daughters into war without a debate by Congress. Well, during the State of the Union address, President Trump said that Iran is developing missiles that may soon be able to reach the U.S. and that Iran is restarting its nuclear program. How much has the Trump administration shared evidence of those claims with lawmakers like you? Well, let's take both. So how about the nuclear program? First, we had controlled Iran's nuclear program by a diplomatic deal that we entered into with our allies, with adversaries like China and Russia and Iran. President Trump tore up the deal. President Trump, after a 12-day bombing campaign by Israel over the summer, used U.S. assets to bomb Iranian nuclear sites and claimed that the Iranian nuclear program was obliterated. That was just six months ago. So now all of a sudden, their nuclear program poses such a threat that we can't even have a debate and vote in Congress? It makes no sense. With respect to the missiles, they are developing missiles, which they may use at some time against the United States. There's so many hypotheticals in there. And the overmatch we have is such that Iran knows this. If they were to use a missile against the United States, which they haven't, it would be a catastrophe for them. Okay, but given what you know now about the situation in Iran and whatever threat they do or might pose to the U.S. militarily, what would you want to see the U.S. military do at this point? Is there anything justifiable in your mind right now? I would say provide defense support to nations in the region. But we shouldn't commit our own children to yet another war in the Middle East when 25 years of war in the Middle East has produced so little for this country and so little for the region Okay As we mentioned there is a U delegation in Geneva right now in talks with Iran What about concerns that this debate in Congress about limiting presidential power, what about concerns that that might reduce the U.S.'s leverage in those diplomatic talks? Could they? Well, you know, a war is a good idea or a bad idea. And if it's a bad idea. I don't think you should bluff it to try to get the upper hand in a negotiation. It's a bad idea in this case, in my view. But the fact of the discussions even today is one of the reasons why, even though my resolution was ripe for voting this week, we decided a few days out in the future, likely next week would be preferable. Let that negotiation proceed. Let's do all we can to do what we did 10 years ago and find a diplomatic deal to avoid the need for war. You oppose the Trump administration's claiming of powers that you believe belong to Congress constitutionally. You also oppose war, war with Iran and the repression by the regime in Iran. So then what is your larger preferred path forward here when it comes to the regime there? Well, look, I do think the tools that we have, the sanctions tools and others have made a huge impact on the regime. And it's put the regime in a place, as was the case in 2016. the regime came to the table and negotiated the nuclear deal, not because of the threat of war. What was real was the sanctions effect on the Iranian economy. That brought them to the table. We reached that deal, but then we also maintained the ability to use sanctions against Iran for non-nuclear activity, missiles, crackdowns on human rights. So I think we should try to return to that. Let's get a deal on the nuclear program and then use these other tools that we have to try to deal with non-nuclear activities that are causing instability in the region. That was Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. This episode was produced by Alejandra Marquez-Honse and Karen Zamora with audio engineering by Ted Nibane. It was edited by Patrick Jern Watananen and Courtney Dornin. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Elsa Chang. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Consider This sponsor-free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.
