[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 24, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3179-S3181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  Iran

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, Donald Trump's Operation Epic Fury has 
become ``Operation Epic Failure.'' He started a war of choice. It 
turned out, Iran had a lot more leverage than he ever anticipated.
  The President thought that superior weapons, a huge number of bombs 
would give, well, the opportunity for America to conduct a war in which 
Iran would unconditionally surrender. The President expected that in 
short order.
  But not all unfolds accordingly because Iran had an ace up its 
sleeve: It had the ability to stop traffic on the Strait of Hormuz. And 
if the President had listened to any expert, they would have said: You 
are totally underestimating the leverage and power Iran has over the 
world economy.
  But he didn't listen. So like a dog that got skunked, he has slunk 
away humiliated--``Operation Trump Humiliation''--and the American 
people and the world are paying the price.
  I am relieved that the bombs have stopped falling, but Trump's 
disastrous deal has left everyone so much worse off.
  The American military: a huge number of munitions expended, 13 
servicemembers killed, hundreds wounded.
  The U.S. Treasury: depleted by some $50 billion to $80 billion.
  American families are paying a much higher price for gas and now 
facing year-over-year inflation of 4.2 percent because of Trump's war.
  American farmers are paying so much more for fertilizer, paying so 
much more for diesel; bad for the farmers for sure, but that is going 
to mean higher grocery costs for the American family.
  And in international affairs, Russia has been enriched, the Iranian 
hard-liners have been strengthened; the reformers in Iran have been 
undermined; our alliances have been deeply, carelessly damaged. Now, of 
course, Iranian civilians have paid the price with thousands dead and 
far more injured.
  And Iran's highly enriched uranium? Still in exactly the same place 
it was before his war started.
  Now, Trump has signed a 14-point framework, and it has some troubling 
elements. Donald Trump calls himself ``Dealmaker-in-Chief,'' so let's 
look at the deal that he has struck.
  What does Iran get? Access to $24 billion in unfrozen funds, waivers 
that allow Iran to sell its oil at the world price, a commitment by the 
United States to organize a $300 billion plan like a Marshall Plan to 
rebuild Iran, and a stipulation that after 60 days, Iran can work with 
Oman and work out fees for vessels traveling through the Strait of 
Hormuz.
  Let's compare that to the JCPOA that President Obama negotiated. And 
for more than a decade, I have listened to colleagues across the aisle 
say President Obama did a side deal that returned $500 million to Iran 
in frozen funds and interest on that $500 million; that we had had it 
so long, it had stacked up to $700 million.
  All right. We are talking about less than $2 billion. Here is Trump: 
$24 billion in unfrozen funds, $300 billion in redevelopment, waivers 
for your oil, and the ability to charge fees in the Strait of Hormuz--
not even vaguely comparable.
  And those elements, those are not an exchange for a final nuclear 
deal. They are an advance of one, undermining America's leverage to get 
a nuclear deal done. And Trump calls himself a dealmaker, giving away 
all the leverage up front.

  And what else does Iran get? No restrictions on cruise missiles or 
drones; no restrictions on ballistic missiles; no restrictions on 
funding proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, the 
Houthis in Yemen. Wow. Those are all important elements.
  But the deal does deliver two things: America lifts its blockade of 
the Iranian ports, and Iran lifts its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. 
But those were the conditions before the war started. So the one 
positive thing it delivers was already in place before there was a war. 
So no improvement because of the war.
  President Trump has recklessly squandered American lives and 
treasure. He has recklessly weakened America's standing in the world. 
He has recklessly raised costs for American families here at home.
  This is absolutely the embodiment of why the Founders gave the 
question of war, not to the President, but to Congress. It is why we 
have to stand up for the constitutional vision that we swore an oath to 
when we became U.S. Senators.
  Is there any Senator here who didn't swear that oath to the 
Constitution? Is there any Senator here who hasn't read the 
Constitution and read that the question of war was assigned to 
Congress, not the President?
  Here is how Madison described it. He said: The Constitution supposes, 
what the history of all governments demonstrates, that it is the 
Executive most interested and most prone to war. The Constitution has 
accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the 
legislative branch.
  Does anyone need a clearer explanation than that, under our 
Constitution, a President cannot take us to war and that there was very 
careful reasoning that went into making that decision: because 
Executives are too prone to go to war, and no one person should be able 
to put the lives and treasure of America at risk.
  That isn't to say Congress always gets it right. This Chamber and the 
House Chamber, they had a debate over the authorization to go to war in 
Afghanistan. These two Chambers, they had a debate over going to war in 
Iraq. I believe they got it wrong on both occasions. But there was an 
opportunity to seek information, to compare ideas, to wrestle with the 
prospect--an appropriate debate on such a monumental question.
  Now, this Chamber and the House Chamber have started to exercise 
their

[[Page S3180]]

responsibility to the Constitution. Because if we turn the clock back, 
in the wake of Vietnam, when there was no authorization, Congress 
passed the War Powers Act, and the War Powers Act attempted to create a 
framework so that we would know how to exercise the debate for the 
question of war. And it said the President--unless our interests are 
attacked--cannot go to war unless there is authorization from both 
Chambers. Pretty clear. It also said the President, if we were 
attacked, could go to war for no more than 60 days without getting 
authorization from this Chamber.
  Now, in this case, America had not been threatened in the fashion 
envisioned in the War Powers Act, but the President went to war anyway. 
So in that case we shouldn't have been under the 60 days. But many of 
my colleagues in the majority thought that applied, and so we voted 
time and time and time again. And time and time again my colleagues 
failed to honor the Constitution and say to the President: Stop and get 
an authorization because that is what the Constitution says.
  But then the House held a vote, and the House voted to actually pass 
a War Powers Resolution. And it automatically came over here, and it 
automatically came up on the floor. And we passed it this week 50 to 
48. We adopted it. And that concurrent resolution--this one right 
here--this says: Mr. President, stop military hostilities unless you 
get authorization from Congress.
  Here is the exact wording:

       Congress directs the President to remove United States 
     Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of 
     Iran.

  And at the close of it, it notes that action can only occur if it is 
``explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific 
congressional authorization for use of military force against Iran.''
  So, Mr. President--and I am speaking Mr. President of the United 
States of America--Congress has spoken, exercising its power under the 
Constitution. You cannot restart hostilities against Iran unless you 
get an authorization.
  You know, in 2015, many mocked the JCPOA. They said war is the only 
way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. But now here we are at 
this moment, and it turns out that we had the war and that diplomacy is 
the only way to actually stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.
  And that JCPOA, it restricted Iran's nuclear stockpile to 300 
kilograms--that is 300 kilograms of uranium--and prohibited uranium 
enrichment above 3.67 percent. That is a very low level, way lower than 
bomb level. It shipped their more highly enriched uranium out of Iran 
to be under the care and supervision of another country. It dismantled 
and removed the bulk of their centrifuges. It created vigorous--
vigorous--verification by international inspectors.
  There were a lot of details that were worked out to ensure that there 
was no path to a nuclear bomb. And, in fact, it required them to 
dismantle their plutonium reactor in Iran called the Arak reactor. It 
took 2 years to negotiate.
  And our Republican colleagues cheered when Donald Trump tore up that 
extensive, detailed agreement blocking the path to a nuclear weapon. 
They cheered when President Trump tore it up.
  Well, I don't hear any cheering now, when it turns out this war of 
choice has hurt everyone, in every possible way. More than 100 days of 
war, and Iran still has their enriched uranium. And because Donald 
Trump tore up the JCPOA, they now have 1,000 pounds of more highly 
enriched uranium, enriched to 60 percent, enough for 10 nuclear 
weapons, because Donald Trump tore up the agreement that blocked that 
from happening.
  In return for ending the war, Iran has agreed to just 60 days of 
negotiating in which they will talk about maybe returning to some of 
the framework of the JCPOA. Pretty humiliating for Donald Trump.
  But humiliation is not the question. I hope the President and his 
team will be successful in the negotiation to restore the many elements 
that blocked the path to a nuclear weapon. That is in the interest of 
all of us. I have little hope, however, that they will reach that 
agreement in 2 months, in 60 days.
  So here is my crystal ball, Jeff's crystal ball: No detailed 
agreement on Iran nuclear material will be signed by mid-August when 
the 60 days expire. I hope I am wrong.
  It is also the case that we have a law that says any nuclear deal 
must be submitted to Congress. So let's make sure that law is followed.
  We have seen the costs in blood and treasure when a President goes it 
alone. We have been reminded of the wisdom of our Founders, who said 
the President is not allowed, constitutionally, to go it alone. We 
can't afford to have that happen again. And yesterday, finally, 
Congress passed a bill--a resolution to rein in Trump's war. Do you 
know that that is the first time that we have actually done that since 
the 1973 War Powers Act was signed--the first time that both Chambers 
approved a concurrent resolution directing the President to end a 
military conflict? It is a powerful condemnation of President Trump's 
war of choice.
  I will tell you, I am concerned not just about how the negotiations 
will go, because I know how complicated they will be from how 
complicated they were when President Obama undertook those 
negotiations. Again, I hope they are successful, but I will tell you, I 
am worried that they won't be. And I am worried that an angry and a 
humiliated Donald Trump, who has slunk away from the war like a stuck 
dog, is going to try to distract from all of this--distract by trying 
to rig the November election.
  In fact, today, he was here to talk to Senators of his party about 
how to rig the November election, that he wants his SAVE Act passed 
that stops American citizens from voting that he doesn't want to vote. 
He doesn't want college students to vote. He doesn't want Tribal 
members to vote. He doesn't want women to vote. He doesn't want people 
living in cities to vote. And he has crafted a bill to make it very 
hard for those people to vote because he wants to rig the election.
  And I am also worried that he will create another international 
incident, perhaps with an attack or further action regarding Cuba, 
because when Trump makes one mess, he starts a new mess in order to 
distract from the previous mess.
  Donald Trump's Operation Epic Fury has become ``Operation Epic 
Failure,'' devastating for the United States of America, and all 
Americans should be furious at this abuse of the Constitution and all 
the harm that has come from it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, for every American who is wondering what 
on Earth the war in Iran over the past 3\1/2\ months was for, the 
answer is relatively simple: next to nothing.
  Thirteen American servicemembers are dead. Thousands of Iranians have 
been killed. We spent tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money. 
Gas shot up to $5.70 in Hawaii. Grocery bills and energy bills spiked 
everywhere. We depleted our stockpiles of critical weapons systems. We 
alienated even our closest allies, who understandably wanted nothing to 
do with this regime-change war of choice.
  And what was it all for? What did we get out of it?
  Well, if you take one look at the memorandum of understanding that 
Donald Trump signed last week, what is plainly obvious is that not only 
was this war reckless and illegal and unnecessary, but it also didn't 
get us anything. It has made a lot of things worse.
  We don't have a nuclear agreement yet, only a framework to try to 
reach something close to the original Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action.
  So to be clear, pre-Trump, we had a Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action. We had the ability for the IAEA to go into Iran and do 
intrusive inspections. We had the plan to dispose of the fissile 
material in a third-party country and to be able to verify it.
  And now, what we have is an MOU to negotiate. And if we are very 
fortunate, if things break absolutely in every correct direction, we 
will get back to where we were 12 years ago.
  The same regime is still in place, but now it is younger and more 
radical, and they have demonstrated that they have substantial leverage 
in the Strait of Hormuz. The opposition in Iran is weaker.
  One of the hopes of this regime-change war was that they were going

[[Page S3181]]

to see the destruction coming from the American and Israeli military, 
and it would rally the opposition, and the Ayatollahs would collapse 
and give up, and there would be a regime change and a new era in Iran.
  It has gotten worse. They are younger and more radical, and they have 
more leverage.
  Now, I want to be really clear here. The mistake is not ending the 
war; it was starting it in the first place. Every day this war went on 
only compounded that catastrophe, and so we ought to be relieved that 
it may be over and that diplomacy is being given another chance, 
because it is the only viable path forward.
  But none of that obviates the fact that we are suing for peace 
because it is the least bad option; that a diplomatic solution was 
within reach all along, before a single bomb was dropped; that after 
several months of a deadly and costly war, things are worse, not 
better.
  On February 27, the day before the war started, the Strait of Hormuz 
was open. Oil and other commodities like fertilizers flowed freely to 
all of the places around the world. Now, under the MOU, the strait is 
open again but only for 60 days, after which Iran is reserving the 
right to charge a fee for ships to pass.
  Do you understand how unprecedented it is in terms of international 
law, in terms of international commerce, in terms of the way this 
planet works with the freedom of navigation, that one belligerent 
country now gets to charge a fee if you want to move something through 
international waters?
  That is not a ``w.'' That is not good for this country or regional 
stability.
  Under the original Iran agreement that President Obama signed and 
Trump later ripped up, Iran promised not to develop a nuclear weapon. 
It was right there on the first page of the JCPOA. And what it meant 
was that Iran would not produce the kind of highly enriched uranium 
that could be used in a nuclear weapon.
  They have renewed that commitment in the MOU, except for a much 
higher price this time.
  Under the JCPOA--and I remember. I was on the floor. I was a baby 
Senator here, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: 
Oh, my God, you are unfreezing Iranian-sanctioned money, assets to the 
tune of many billions of dollars.
  Can you believe how much money we are giving to Iran in exchange for 
this pause in the development of their nuclear program? Can you believe 
that you are giving money to Iran? Look at how belligerent they are in 
the region.
  That was the argument. OK, I thought it was worth it because it was 
basically buying us 15 years of them not being capable to develop a 
nuclear weapon.
  But under this--and, by the way, not in exchange for a nuclear 
agreement, in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days.
  So I want you to understand, what they are getting is enormous, but 
it is also not even for a nuclear agreement. It is for an agreement to 
stop choking the global economy, not only where their assets will be 
unfrozen, but they will be able to sell their oil freely on the open 
market for the first time in 30 years.

  That is not some $1.7 billion concession. That is not some $10 
billion concession. That changes generations of bipartisan policy 
against the Iranian regime.
  One of the reasons that they were not even more belligerent, even 
more powerful was that we were heavily sanctioning their oil. And we 
are lifting it in exchange for not a nuclear agreement but just for 
them to take their boot off the necks of the global economy.
  And so, I reiterate this point: Keep two thoughts in your head. First 
of all, the main error was in starting this stupid regime-change war in 
the first place, and that you don't have to be some member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee or some fancy foreign policy expert or some 
professor at some school that studies the Middle East to say: Hey, you 
know what, these same dudes keep asking for a new regime-change war in 
the Middle East about every decade. They usually get it, and it always 
fails. And they did it again, and it failed again.
  And that is a different thing from me demanding that they continue 
this idiocy. I am not demanding that they continue this idiocy. I am 
glad that they are finally folding.
  But make no mistake. They are folding, and they are folding because 
they played a terrible hand, as terribly as you could possibly play it.
  And so, all I am asking--if you are an Iran hawk, if you are a dove, 
if you are anywhere in between--is let's have a logical foreign policy. 
Let's understand that Iran is a belligerent country--they are not our 
allies--and that almost every single time--not every time, but almost 
every single time--kinetic engagement without any kind of strategy 
doesn't work. It always backfires.
  And, by the way, that is, generally speaking, true. It is, 
extraordinarily, predictably true in the Middle East.
  And I want to make one final point: It is the same people every time. 
It is the same foreign policy think tanks. It is the same people in the 
media. It is the same nonprofits. It is the same Members of Congress.
  They just look around the planet for a place to remake with force. 
And there may be a couple of examples in human history where you can 
remake a place with force, but usually it backfires spectacularly.
  And it did here again.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.