AYESHA RASCOE, HOST:
Sunday began with a new wave of strikes on Iran. President Trump says the bombing will continue through this week. The Israeli air force today is targeting Iran's capital and says it's looking to, quote, "pave the path to Tehran." Meanwhile, the debate continues here in Washington about the justification for the military campaign. We're joined now by Jim Himes. He's a Democrat representing Connecticut in the U.S. House. Congressman, welcome.
JIM HIMES: Thank you for having me.
RASCOE: So there's been some confusion about how much Congress knew about the moves against Iran. As a ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, you're near the top of the list for classified briefings. How much did you know about all this before the missiles were launched?
HIMES: Yeah. Well, as a member of the Gang of Eight - and, of course, there are eight of us - I probably knew more than pretty much the rest of the Congress. I will tell you that last Tuesday, there was a briefing by the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and the director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, for the Gang of Eight, and we were told that no decision had been taken to actually move ahead with the attack but that it was, you know, well along in its planning. And then on the eve of the attack, the secretary of state reached out to those Gang of Eight members to let them know that it was going forward.
So that was the notification was - that was done. Now, from a constitutional standpoint, obviously, anyone who reads the Constitution knows that this sort of thing should actually be voted on and authorized by the Congress. So that's better than the alerts that we got prior to the Venezuela mission but still not what the Constitution demands.
RASCOE: Will there be a vote on a War Powers Resolution, and if so, how will you vote?
HIMES: Yeah. The intent of the Democratic minority is to use a privileged maneuver to call forward a War Powers Resolution, which would require the withdrawal or the cessation of hostilities against Iran until there is a authorization given by the Congress. Again, this is what's consistent with the - whatever you think of the Iranian regime or the action taken so far, this is what the Constitution demands. And so, yes, there will be such a vote, and I will vote in favor of stopping hostilities or pausing them until the Congress authorizes this military activity.
RASCOE: But now that the attacks have happened, like, can the genie be put back in the bottle? Like, basically, you know, that idea - you break it, you buy it. Like, can you stop the hostilities, even for a moment, now that this has been put into motion?
HIMES: Well, you could. I mean, obviously, the - as you put it, the genie's been let out of the bottle. I mean, apparently, the supreme leader has been killed. Other senior regime officials have been killed. So obviously, we're not reversing the tape on that. But no, of course. And again, the law would require that hostilities cease until the Congress can debate and approve this in some form or another. Now, you know, the larger question - I don't actually think that - No. 1, that...
RASCOE: Well, how long do you think that would take? Like, if you did - if that was passed, if he was constrained, how long do you think it would take the Congress to approve, you know, actions against Iran?
HIMES: Well, as a practical matter, I think that once the Democrats move this War Powers Resolution, the Republican majority is very, very likely to table it. So as a practical matter, I think this goes away very quickly. And of course, then we're left to struggle with a much more challenging question, which is, where does this all go? You know, we can bomb Iran along with the Israelis for, you know, a lengthy period of time, but in the service of what? You know, is the intention regime change? Because there aren't many examples, either of regime change affected through bombing or, quite frankly, of American military forces actually doing regime change in a way that is, you know, satisfactory. I point to Afghanistan. I point to Iraq. I point to Libya. When we break a regime, quite often, it's replaced by something worse or by chaos.
RASCOE: What about the argument that Iran has been a source of instability in the region, in the world, a sponsor of terrorism and oppressive to its people, and that at this moment of weakness, this was the time to take action before they could do more damage?
HIMES: Well, no one will argue with the premise of your question, which is that this regime was truly a horrible regime. But I do think it's something worth - as somebody who represents 750,000 Americans, it is worth the debate about every time we decide that a regime is an appalling regime - and there are lots of them around the world. The Iranians were sort of uniquely awful, but, you know, there's dozens of awful regimes around the world. And I do think that Americans should think about whether we want to be in the business of being the world's policeman, as we used to say, especially with a president who promised us no more wars.
Now, in the coming weeks, as we see whether there is, in fact, regime change - something you might be doubtful about - you know, Americans will begin to decide whether this enormously expensive and risky operation was, in fact, worth it if it doesn't actually change the regime, in the same way that the regime has actually not been changed in Venezuela.
RASCOE: That's Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut. Congressman, thank you so much for your time.
HIMES: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
