US Senators caution military may attack Iran if two conditions are met.
Top U.S. Senators Call for Military Strikes Against Iran
In a bold and bipartisan move, top U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) announced over the weekend their introduction of a resolution that demands military strikes against Iran. This resolution would be triggered if Iran’s terror proxies in the Middle East were to kill any U.S. soldiers or if Hezbollah were to open up a second front against Israel.
The Senators made this announcement during an engaging CNN interview on Sunday morning with Dana Bash on ”State of the Union.”
This development follows a shocking terrorist attack by Hamas last month, which claimed the lives of 1,400 Israelis. Additionally, Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group in Lebanon, has been carrying out small-scale attacks against Israel, raising concerns about a potential full-scale assault.
“It basically says, if the war expands, if Hezbollah opens up a second front in the north against Israel in a substantial way to overwhelm Iron Dome, then we should hit the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Graham passionately stated. “There is no Hamas without the Ayatollahs’ support. There is no Hezbollah without the Ayatollahs’ support. The great Satan in the region is not Israel or the United States. It’s Iran.”
Graham emphasized that he and Blumenthal recently returned from the region, where Israel pleaded with them to deter Iran from entering the war. Israel is currently focused on eradicating the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza.
“If any of our troops are killed in Syria and Iraq by Iranian-backed militias, I think that’s an expansion of the war,” Graham explained. “So, the resolution puts Iran on notice that all this military force in the region will be coming after you if you expand this war by activating Hezbollah or killing an American through your proxies in Syria and Iraq. And they need to hear that. They need to believe that.”
Graham’s remarks come in the wake of at least 31 attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-backed terrorists over the past two weeks, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.
What potential risks and consequences could arise from launching military strikes against Iran’s terrorist proxies?
Launch any major attack against Israel.
The resolution, titled “Protecting U.S. Interests in the Middle East”, comes amid escalating tensions between the United States and Iran. The two senators argue that a strong response is necessary to deter Iran and its proxies from further aggression and to ensure the safety and security of American personnel and allies in the region.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-time advocate for a tough stance on Iran, emphasized the importance of holding the regime accountable for its actions. He stated, “Iran must understand that the United States is not afraid to take decisive action when necessary to protect our soldiers and our interests in the Middle East. We cannot sit idly by while our troops are targeted and our allies are threatened.”
Senator Blumenthal echoed these sentiments, highlighting the bipartisan nature of the resolution. He stated, “This resolution sends a powerful message that Democrats and Republicans stand united in our commitment to defend American interests and prevent Iran’s destabilizing influence in the region. We must ensure that Iran knows the consequences of its actions.”
The resolution specifically calls for swift military strikes targeted at Iran’s terrorist proxies in the region, including militias such as Kata’ib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq in Iraq, as well as the Houthi rebels in Yemen. It also mentions Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group backed by Iran, which has a long history of inciting violence and hostility towards Israel.
The introduction of this resolution has already sparked heated debate among lawmakers and analysts alike. Critics argue that military strikes could easily escalate into a larger conflict and potentially draw the United States into a full-scale war with Iran. They contend that diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions should remain the primary tools for dealing with Iran’s aggression.
Proponents of the resolution, on the other hand, argue that military strikes are necessary to send a clear message to Iran and its proxies that attacks on American soldiers and allies will not be tolerated. They believe that a strong military response is the only way to effectively deter further aggression and ensure the safety and security of American personnel in the region.
With tensions between the United States and Iran at an all-time high, the introduction of this resolution highlights the growing concern among lawmakers regarding Iran’s destabilizing activities in the Middle East. It remains to be seen whether this call for military action will gain widespread support or if it will be met with resistance from those advocating for a more cautious approach.
As the debate rages on, it is clear that finding a resolution to the current crisis with Iran will require careful consideration and a measured response. The stakes are high, and the consequences of any action taken will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications. In the coming weeks and months, the world will be watching closely as U.S. senators and policymakers grapple with this pressing issue and determine the best course of action to ensure peace and stability in the region.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
