Far too calmly. This is exactly why the Constitution requires Congress to declare war - so that we can't wind up in a war because of the decisions of one man.

Sure wish that was still in force...

▲

lern_too_spel 3 days ago | parent [-]

Congress can stop it at any time. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5799286-iran-war-powers-...

This was true of past conflicts as well. Doe v. Bush tried to challenge the Iraq Resolution because Congress had not declared war, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Congress had not opposed funding the war. The sad reality is that this is what the people had voted for, and the government is still working as intended.

▲

Lapel2742 2 days ago | parent [-]

>Congress can stop it at any time.

No. Your congress can't stop it because it takes two to tango and Iran is clearly not willing to end the war just like that.

You people should have stopped that criminal long ago.

▲

rolandog 2 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, but do we agree that the unitedstatesian's (pet peeve: they shouldn't be called americans, per definition) Congress could at least stop one side of the war (the one that initiated the aggression). The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation.

The US would then need to comply with whatever sanctions the UN might apply due to them having started an illegal war.

▲

Lapel2742 2 days ago | parent [-]

> The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation.

I highly doubt it. Here are the facts from the viewpoint of Iran:

- The US and the UK overthrew the democratic iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh

- The US terminated the working nuclear deal.

- The US ambushed Iran twice in the midst of ongoing negotiations.

- Israel is on a conquest to annex new land and to rule over the middle east. At least that is likely there goal.

Iran clearly stated their demands. The US should pay up for the damage they caused and the US should give up its military bases in the Arab countries.

While the money will probably not be that big of a problem to negotiate, the military bases will be. At least Iran will insist on something substantive that guarantees that they are not ambushed a third time.

▲

red-iron-pine 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

you also left out all of the now-burning Middle Eastern powers, all of whom also hate Iran, and who won't just go away.

The US can take their ball and go home to a different hemisphere, but ME violence will continue.

IMO the real question is how long the Arabs will let Israel dictate their foreign policy via the US

▲

Hikikomori 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

- Israel killed Irans negotiations last year as well.

▲

AnimalMuppet 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But from the non-Iranian point of view, those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran. So that's going to be problematic.

I mean, the US could unilaterally decide "no, we're not going to defend the Middle East anymore, good luck everybody" and leave. But it's not like the US is oppressing, say, Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.

	▲	Lapel2742 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran. As far as I know: Israel and Saudi Arabia want these bases. I do not know the current opinion of the other Arab countries. > Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there. At least they are now noticing that there are risks in hosting the US military too. > “One of the most significant outcomes of this war is the shattering of the concept of a regional security system in the Gulf region,” Mr. al-Ansari said. “The regional security framework in the Gulf was based on certain axioms. Many of these axioms have been bypassed in the current war.” https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/world/middleeast/qatar-us...