'It's disgusting': Sen. Ruben Gallego on attacks on Iran

Key Concepts

• War Powers Resolution: A congressional process to limit the President’s power to commit the U.S. to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress.
• Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA): A 2015 agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, which the US withdrew from in 2018.
• Deterrence: The use of military strength or the threat of it to discourage an adversary from taking action.
• Kinetic Strikes: Military actions involving physical force, such as bombing or missile strikes.
• Regional War: A conflict involving multiple countries within a specific geographic area.
• Nuclear Proliferation: The spread of nuclear weapons and technology.

Security Concerns & Response to Recent Events

The Secret Service is currently operating with heightened security measures across the United States and is coordinating closely with federal and local law enforcement agencies in response to escalating international tensions. This follows recent events that have prompted concerns about potential domestic repercussions.

Senator Ruben Gallego’s Reaction to Military Action

Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), an Iraq war veteran, expressed strong disapproval of the recent military actions taken against Iran. He first learned of the attacks while preparing breakfast for his son and immediately recalled his experiences in Iraq, where he lost friends in combat. He characterized the situation as a “scary” and reckless “lurch to war” undertaken without a clear plan or demonstrable benefit to U.S. interests, placing American service members at unnecessary risk. He stated, “It’s disgusting, and I think that we should…do everything we can to stop this war and pull out before it gets worse.”

Congressional Response: War Powers Resolution

Senator Gallego confirmed that a War Powers Resolution, similar to one being considered in the House of Representatives, will be introduced in the Senate. This resolution, spearheaded by Senator Tim Kaine along with Gallego and others, aims to halt what they perceive as an “illegal slide to war.” The goal is to reassert Congressional authority over decisions regarding military engagement. Gallego acknowledged the difficulty in securing Republican support, noting that while some senators have expressed private reservations, public opposition has been limited to figures like Representative Tom Massie. He emphasized the dangerous nature of initiating conflict “without permission from the US government” and against a nation “significantly bigger than Iraq.”

Critique of Administration’s Approach & Regional Implications

Gallego sharply criticized the administration’s decision to engage in military action, arguing it was made without a comprehensive strategy or consideration of the consequences. He specifically pointed out the lack of a plan to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions after the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. He stated the current situation is a direct result of the President “basically got rid of that plan and had no plan of how to actually stop Iranian…nuclear proliferation without going to war.”

He further argued that the conflict primarily serves the interests of Gulf Coast countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel, and that the US should not expend its resources and lives on their behalf. He believes there are “better ways to handle this” and that the current course will ultimately lead to a “worse situation than when we started.”

The Human Cost of War & Leadership Accountability

Drawing on his personal experiences as a veteran, Gallego condemned the casual attitude of political leaders towards the realities of war. He described the emotional and psychological toll of combat, recalling the fear and grief of losing friends and the constant threat of death. He criticized “show horse leaders who’ve never actually had to sacrifice” and their failure to fully grasp the consequences of their decisions. He stated, “They don't understand what actually it means to go to war…people are going to suffer…for generations.” He attributed the situation to a lack of checks and balances, with Republicans “just there to cheer him on instead of actually put a check on this.”

Domestic Security & Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

Regarding domestic security, Gallego advised Americans to be vigilant and trust law enforcement. However, he expressed greater concern about the administration’s lack of foresight. He highlighted that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were previously contained for years, but the President’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and failure to develop an alternative strategy have escalated the crisis. He emphasized that the current conflict puts not only US troops but also civilians in regional partner countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE at risk.

Alternatives to Full-Scale War & Deterrence Strategies

When questioned about the administration’s justification for the strikes as a deterrent to further Iranian aggression, Gallego argued that numerous alternative approaches exist. He suggested “limited ways” to address Iran’s actions, including surgical strikes outside of Iran, cyber warfare, and economic sanctions. He reiterated that a “full regional war” is the least desirable outcome, particularly given its long-term detrimental effects on U.S. interests. He advocated for diplomatic solutions and a return to agreements like the original Iran nuclear deal. He stated, “There's a lot of ways you can do this and it doesn't mean that we have to just let Iran do whatever it wants.”

Conclusion

Senator Gallego presented a scathing critique of the recent military actions against Iran, emphasizing the lack of planning, the potential for escalation, and the devastating human cost of war. He strongly advocated for Congressional oversight through a War Powers Resolution and urged a return to diplomatic solutions. His perspective, informed by his experience as an Iraq war veteran, underscores the gravity of the situation and the need for a more cautious and strategic approach to foreign policy. He believes the current path is not in the U.S. interest and will ultimately lead to a more dangerous and unstable world.