Republican senators eye vote on authorizing further military force in Iran

President Trump’s legal timeline for engaging in hostilities with Iran without congressional approval is running out, and some Republican lawmakers are ready to have their say.

A group of Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, is drafting an authorization for use of military force against Iran to ensure the conflict does not devolve into a never-ending war. She said she would introduce it when the Senate returns from recess the week of May 11 if the administration does not present that plan.

“This is an authorization, but it is also a restraint. It’s not a blank check,” Ms. Murkowski said in a floor speech Thursday.

“It would not grant open-ended authority,” she said. “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 objective and an exit criteria.”

The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires a president to terminate military hostilities against a foreign nation within 60 days unless Congress has declared war or enacted a war authorization. A president can extend the deadline by 30 days to ensure the safe withdrawal of troops, though it does not authorize continued offensive operations.

The 60-day period for Mr. Trump’s war against Iran expires Friday, based on the time elapsed since the administration notified Congress it entered hostilities — or so most lawmakers thought.

“We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who was questioning him on the topic, said he does not believe the law supports that interpretation.

“It’s going to pose a really important legal question for the administration,” he said. “We have serious constitutional concerns [about the war], and we don’t want to layer those with additional statutory concerns.”

The Washington Times asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune, South Dakota Republican, whether he agrees with Mr. Hegseth’s assessment that the ceasefire pauses the 60-day clock.

“I don’t know. That proposition has never been tested before,” Mr. Thune said. “I guess it’s going to be probably somewhat subject to interpretation, because theoretically, yeah, [Friday] would be 60, unless you apply that.”

Regardless, Mr. Thune said the administration needs to notify Congress “at some point” about its next steps in the war. He said he is aware that Ms. Murkowski and other Republican senators are working on a military authorization.

“We’ll see if it comes together, what it looks like, and kind of see where the administration goes in the next week or so,” he said.

An authorization for use of military force would face fierce Democratic opposition, and Mr. Kaine suggested it would likely be filibustered.

“Nobody on the Democratic side, with the possible exception of [Sen. John] Fetterman [of Pennsylvania], would likely vote for it,” Mr. Kaine told The Times.

He said Democrats contemplated offering a military authorization to force Republicans to go on record about whether they support the war, but “decided that just was not the right way to go about legislating,” because they would be voting against their own proposal.

“Those who believe that war is a good idea have the burden of trying to scope an AUMF,” Mr. Kaine said.

Democrats view the war in Iran as politically unpopular and have been forcing weekly votes on war powers resolutions that, if successful, would force Mr. Trump to remove armed forces from the region absent an imminent threat.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican voting with Democrats until Thursday, when Sen. Susan M. Collins of Maine backed the war powers resolution in light of the 60-day deadline for ending hostilities, which she said is a requirement, “not a suggestion.”

“Further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close,” Ms. Collins said. “I voted to end the continuation of these military hostilities at this time until such a case is made.”

Sen. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, said the Republicans’ war authorization after the 60-day legal deadline is “too late.”

“I also wonder how many Republican members are going to want to attach their name to this deeply unpopular war and extend it for some period of time in which they will then own responsibility for whatever the president does, a president who has threatened to wipe out a civilization,” he said.

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has expressed reluctance about voting for a war authorization.

He said Thursday that the onus is on the administration to send a formal communication to Congress stating its belief that the ceasefire stops the 60-day clock or to request a 30-day extension.

“If they don’t … then we probably need to debate an AUMF,” Mr. Hawley said. “And I don’t really want to do that, because I don’t want to open up further conflict. I want to wind it down.”

Ms. Murkowski said her effort was born in part from the administration’s lack of communication about its objectives and metrics for success.

“If we don’t press them to define those parameters, we may risk repeating history,” she said. “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.”

Other Republicans interested in a war authorization include Sens. John Curtis of Utah, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Todd Young of Indiana.

Mr. Young said an authorization is likely needed unless the administration announces a near-term withdrawal plan.

“I haven’t taken any particular options off the table, and I look forward to working with the administration to execute a well-defined plan,” he said.

Mr. Tillis told The Times the authorization is not meant to be antagonistic or undermine Mr. Trump’s efforts to ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon, but it will help force the administration to provide more information on the conflict than it has to date.

“This is about validating and building support, because I believe with Congress playing a more meaningful role than a casual observer with limited information, then we can go help build the case back home,” he said. “And we need to.”