War with Iran seems to be inevitable.

FoxNews has Sean Hannity at least accepting war with Iran as an appropriate response to the 15 hostages taken from the British Navy. It was also reported that British Sailors were told to not rescue the 15 as they were in the process of being detained by Iranian authorities. If you watch the video, notice in the bottom right corner of the screen an image calling the situation “Iran Hostage Crisis” Day 4.

The most notorious Iran Hostage Crisis was when they took control of the U.S. Embassy and held people hostage for 444 days (until Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981). The embassy staffers were mostly non-military and non-combatants.

The media voices are not actively calling for war with Iran, but they are floating the notion out there like it is a good thing to do. Alan Colmes was pointing out that Iran claimed it was a territorial water dispute vs. an act of war and he was demonized as “carrying water for Iran”. Some people don’t even want the other side to be heard. The trends are leaning toward war with Iran.

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial that holds the U.S. Constitution in distain. That column essentially advocates for a military response to bring Iran to the negotiating table because they “respect force” and:

that Iran was at its most diplomatically pliant after the United States sank much of Tehran’s navy after Iran tried to disrupt oil traffic in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s. Regimes that resort to force the way Iran does tend to be respecters of it.

They balance this part with noting that force would not guarantee Iran’s complaince. According to the WSJ, actually following the U.S. Constitution is helping our enemies. From the article:

Another possibility: sufficiently bloodying Coalition forces in Iraq to hasten their withdrawal. The mullahs might even hope any fighting would embolden Democrats to do Tehran’s bidding by passing legislation that forbids the Administration from attacking Iran without prior Congressional permission. Such a plank was contained in the supplemental war spending bill that passed the House last week until cooler heads removed it.

“Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War”. Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution. The President’s part of war is stated in Art. II, Sec. 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

So if Congress requires the President to have congressional approval to engage in an Act of War, that is doing the bidding of Iran. In one sense, that could be true. If Iran has a Constitution, hopefully they would follow it too, just like any nation should. You would like to think that constraining the power of the President to his constitutionally described powers would be doing the will of the people of the United States.

There is significant and divine wisdom in requiring Congress to declare war. The House of Representatives is answerable to their constituents every two years which is also the longest amount of time that appropriations for military spending are allowed under the Constitution. If the people do not support the war, then Congress can call the troops back or cut funding or something. If the President goes to war, he is actually more politically isolated from the people and can carry out the war with less political pressure than the House of Representatives faces with re-election only happening every four years and a limit of two terms. Careerist politicians in the House have more to lose in supporting an unpopular war when they have control over the funding and declaring of it.

Please pray for our leaders.

Comments Welcome