what’s at stake
With no clear end in sight for the US-Israel war on Iran, Congress will soon weigh whether to approve additional funding for the Pentagon.
The debate is taking on added urgency as the US military burns through its weapons stockpiles. Pentagon officials told lawmakers earlier this week that the first six days of the war cost the US more than $11.3 billion, according to The New York Times.
“I would say by the end of the month, we will have a pretty good idea of what the request will be,” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who chairs the Armed Services Committee, told Semafor when asked how quickly Congress should approve new funds.
Most Republicans are likely to line up behind the administration’s request, but Democrats are wary of devoting more money to an unpopular war effort that hasn’t been approved by Congress.
In this article:
who’s making the case
Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., argued that Congress should approve more funding immediately so that the Pentagon can replenish its depleted weapons stockpiles:
“[Congress should approve a supplemental] ASAP so we can rebuild our munitions and stockpiles, not just for Iran but for anything else that we do.”
Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said that Congress shouldn’t approve more funding for the war because the administration hasn’t been clear about its objectives — or sought authorization from Congress for the military campaign:
“I think Congress should approve the war. So, this administration is doing it all backwards. And I don’t want to be a part of that.
“The fact that they just spent what looks like at least over $11 billion in the first couple of days — this is absolutely reckless, should not be tolerated. What we need to have immediately are public hearings. We should have had them already, and the fact that this administration is hiding from them gives me no confidence in providing any additional funds for them when they’re constantly saying different things. The president is saying he wants ‘unconditional surrender’ one day, then he is saying that he wants to have a say in who the next leader in Iran is. I don’t know what they’re trying to do here, but what I do know is that they didn’t ask the American people for permission.”
Michael O’Hanlon, director of research at the Brookings Institution’s foreign policy program, argued that Congress should approve another funding package to help pay for more weapons — but that lawmakers should also place more limits on the military campaign:
“Congress should quickly approve any funding package that seeks to replenish munitions inventories in response to the Iran war, as well as the ongoing Ukraine conflict and other needs.
“However, rather than content themselves with their earlier (defeated) Iran war resolution, or focus just on their powers of the purse, Congressional Democrats — as well as Republicans — might consider a new Iran war resolution. To my mind, it should approve retroactively President Trump’s air campaign to date, including its attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but prohibit a possible escalation that might involve main ground combat forces, and challenge the viability of catalyzing regime change in Iran with airpower alone.
“This approach would not disallow the use of small numbers of special forces (to rescue pilots, or attempt to destroy Iran’s enriched uranium stocks, for example) but would set a ceiling either numerically or functionally on any such deployment.”
Notable
- House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wouldn’t say whether House Democrats would block an Iran supplemental funding request when asked about it on NBC News.
- House Republicans floated the option of attaching a funding request to a party-line policy bill during a private meeting earlier this week, Politico reported.