Seyed M. Marandi: Plans for a U.S. Land Invasion of Iran; Yemen & Iran Enters the War?
Glenn Diesen | July 16, 2026
Sputnik – 20.07.2026
While the US does retain an enormous offensive capability, which allows it to conduct an intense wave of attacks against Iranian facilities, it can only weaken Iran, veteran war correspondent Elijah J. Magnier tells Sputnik.
The US has plenty of offensive weapons to attack Iran, but at the same time has a limited supply of interceptors needed to repel Iranian counterattacks against US assets, allies and Israel.
“The United States could therefore launch a major campaign, but sustaining it would force difficult choices: which bases to protect, which cities to defend, which incoming threats to intercept,” Magnier explains.
In the meantime, Iran will likely seek to widen the “geography of the conflict, multiplying the number of targets Washington must defend, and raising the political and above all economic costs of an additional American strike.”
Using concentrated ballistic and cruise missile attacks to saturate enemy air defenses, and forcing the US and its allies to expend their interceptors on decoys, Iran can unleash hell upon US bases, logistics hubs, ports, radar installations, and fuel storage facilities in the region.
Attacks upon the US allies in the Gulf can ramp up domestic pressure on local governments, which could prompt them to demand the US to back down.
The Iran also maintains its hold on the Strait of Hormuz, requiring very little resources to ensure that “no insurance company will accept to insure a tanker navigating in a war theater, and no ship owner will take the risk of jeopardizing his asset in that area.”
US media earlier reported that the growing American military presence in the Persian Gulf may signal preparations for a major confrontation.
Press TV – July 20, 2026
US President Donald Trump was received with loud boos from sections of the crowd during the 2026 FIFA World Cup trophy presentation.
Trump was booed at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey on Sunday at the FIFA World Cup final between Argentina and Spain as he presented the Spaniards with the trophy after their 1-0 victory over their rival.
Trump was asked to step aside by the “winners” of the globally sought Gold Cup, with Spain’s captain Rodrigo Hernández Cascante, also known as Rodri, ushering Trump to exit the stage before the World Cup trophy lifting ceremony. He, however, refused to leave the scene and awkwardly lingered on the side of the giant podium as the loud boos and whistles rang out across the stadium. Eventually, a brief exchange between FIFA President Gianni Infantino and Trump resulted in the host of the event giving in to his unpopularity and leaving the world stage viewed by billions of football fans across the globe.
Trump has spent much of his second term in office berating Spain over its NATO military spending and refusal to allow American forces to use Spanish bases in the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, calling the Latinos in general, and Spaniards, in particular, “losers.”
The American president has also branded Spain as a “hopeless” country, deriding the Latino people as “bad people” and briefly threatened to cut off all trade in goods with Madrid.
For his part, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has been a vocal critic of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy for nearly two years.
Sánchez and Trump were present at the final match, both sitting in the VIP section of the stadium.
However, the two Western countries with a long history of territorial wars appear to be at loggerheads still over issues ranging from NATO spending to US militarism in West Asia, Latin America, and beyond.
Madrid censured Washington over US military operations in Venezuela, warning that Washington’s actions endanger sovereignty, international law, and the country’s natural resources.
By Ron Paul | July 20, 2026
Over the weekend the Pentagon announced that four more US soldiers have been killed in President Trump’s war on Iran. That brings the total to 17, but many believe the real number of dead US servicemembers is much higher than that. The Pentagon has claimed it has no obligation to reveal how many military personnel have been injured, which suggests that number may be much higher than we are hearing. Many of these injuries will be horrific and life-altering.
Back on April 12th, President Trump told Fox News that Iran, “has no cards. Their navy is gone. Their air force is gone. Totally gone. They have nothing.” Yet three months later, US bases in the region continue to be successfully attacked, US military equipment worth billions continues to be destroyed, and US servicemembers continue to be killed and injured.
This war was launched by President Trump without Congressional approval in February because the President believed that Iran, at 6,000 miles away, posed an existential threat to the United States. At the same time, he believed that the Iranian government was so weak that after a couple of days of bombing the political system would collapse and a “US-friendly” government could be installed in its place.
This makes no sense. How can a country be strong enough to threaten the United States but be so weak it is about to collapse?
Now, five months later, we continue to attack Iran to open a Hormuz Strait that was open before the war and to end a nuclear weapons program that does not exist. And the American middle and working classes are hit with a price tag for this senseless war that could exceed one trillion dollars.
That is why our Constitution requires that war be declared by the US Congress after extensive deliberation. The Framers wanted to safeguard the new country from the whims of a King George or other monarch who could take the country to war at will. The patriots fought for independence from exactly the political system we have in place today because they understood how destructive endless and foolish wars can be to a country.
The Framers also assumed that Members of the Legislative Branch of government would be of sufficiently good character that they would not allow an executive to abuse power in such a way. They were given all the tools they needed to prevent this, but today Congressmembers remain silent, unwilling to perform the duty required by their office. Most would rather not have the burden of declaring war because they are afraid that an unpopular war might hurt their re-election chances.
A recent poll featured in the Washington Post reveals that nearly seven in ten Americans disapprove of President Trump’s handling of the Iran war. Along with the economy, the Iran war is the most important issue concerning the American people today.
Over the weekend President Trump announced that “we hit (Iran) very hard again… in honor of the three” servicemembers who were killed in recent days. But hitting Iran again does not honor the dead US servicemembers. It only guarantees that more Americans will follow them. If the President really wants to honor our military, he will declare an end to this pointless war, bring all of our troops home from the region, and announce that the destroyed US bases will not be rebuilt. It is time to end the American empire and come home.
Press TV – July 19, 2026
Iran’s integrated air defense network has successfully intercepted and destroyed several enemy aircraft and a missile across multiple regions of the country, including an MQ-9 Reaper drone in the west, a cruise missile, a “Lucas” drone, and another MQ-9 over Ahvaz, as Iranian forces continue to demonstrate their aerial dominance against US aggression.
The Army’s Air Defense Force, operating under the unified national air defense network, shot down an MQ-9 Reaper drone in the western region of the country on Sunday, the Army announced.
This was followed by the interception of a cruise missile belonging to the American aggressor enemy in the same western region, which was successfully tracked and destroyed by Army air defense systems.
Earlier in the day, the Army’s Naval Forces intercepted and shot down a “Lucas” drone over southern Iran, using naval air defense systems operating under the integrated command network.
In a separate operation, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force announced it had shot down another MQ-9 Reaper drone over the skies of Ahvaz in southwestern Iran using an advanced new air defense system.
Additionally, fighters from the 48th Fath Brigade of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province successfully brought down an enemy spy drone in the southern operational zones.
The drone was captured intact after being forced to land, having been conducting reconnaissance and espionage missions over the country’s southern operational areas.
Iran’s air defense record
Iran’s air defense forces have compiled a remarkable record of aerial victories during the ongoing war and previous conflicts with the US.
During the 40-day US-Israeli war of aggression, Iranian air defense units destroyed hundreds of advanced enemy drones, including MQ-9 Reapers, Hermes, and LUCAS models.
The IRGC has also successfully targeted multiple US fighter jets, including F-35 stealth fighters, F-15s, and F-16s, along with refueling planes.
In a single 24-hour period on April 3, 2026, Iranian forces downed an F-15E Strike Eagle, an A-10 Thunderbolt II, multiple MQ-9 Reaper drones, Hermes reconnaissance platforms, and a salvo of cruise missiles.
The downing of three MQ-9 drones and a cruise missile in less than 24 hours comes as Iran’s armed forces continue their sustained retaliation against US military bases across the region, following repeated American violations of a fragile ceasefire and the collapse of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 19, 2026
While the Western media continues to hype Ukraine’s drone attacks on Russia as incredible military achievements that are sapping Russia’s will to fight, the reality is that Russia continues an unrelenting bombing and missile campaign that is destroying critical Ukrainian assets and infrastructure from Kyiv to Odessa.
On July 18–19, 2026 (primarily overnight into July 19), Russia conducted a major combined missile and drone attack, with Kyiv as the primary target. This was described as one of the largest ballistic missile assaults on the capital since the start of the war in February 2022. Reports indicate more than 40 ballistic missiles (including Iskander-M, S-400, and possibly Zircon hypersonic types), plus guided air-launched missiles (Kh-59/69) and others, destroyed targets across Kyiv. Multiple waves targeted Kyiv over roughly 30–60 minutes. In addition, Russia launched over 90–125 Shahed-type, Gerbera, Italmas, and decoy drones launched from various directions.
The previous day, July 17-18, Russia launched seven missiles and 90 drones on the Odesa Oblast. The missile mix was two Iskander-M ballistic missiles, two Onyx anti-ship missiles, and three Kh-59/69 air-to-surface missiles, alongside the 90 drones of various types. This attack has effectively closed the ports at Odessa and Nykolaiv and marks Russia’s a complete break with the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI), which was brokered by UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Turkish President Erdoğan in the summer of 2022.
After the February 2022 invasion, Russia’s navy blockaded Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, and Ukraine mined its own coastal approaches to deter an amphibious assault. Between them, roughly 20+ million tonnes of grain were trapped in silos, unable to move — Ukraine being one of the world’s largest exporters of wheat, corn, barley, and sunflower oil. Global wheat prices spiked, and the countries most exposed were food-import-dependent states in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Horn of Africa (Egypt, Lebanon, Somalia, Yemen among them). The UN framed it explicitly as a hunger-crisis intervention, not a favor to Ukraine’s economy.
Alongside the BSGI, the UN signed a separate three-year Memorandum of Understanding with Russia, committing to help facilitate Russian food and fertilizer exports to world markets. This is the piece often forgotten… Russian food and fertilizer were never formally under Western sanctions, but Moscow argued that secondary effects — sanctions on banks (including SWIFT cutoffs), shipping insurance, and port access — were choking its own agricultural exports. This MoU was Russia’s price for allowing Ukrainian grain out and, despite Moscow’s persistent complaint that the UN failed to deliver on it, Russia did not enforce a blockade until now.
Although Russia finally withdrew from the BGSI on 17 July 2023, declaring the initiative dead and its Black Sea guarantees void, Russia did not move to impose a full blockade on Odessa nor did it routinely attack grain ships entering and leaving Odessa. The ports in Odessa and Nykolaiv were able to conduct normal trade activities, notwithstanding occasional Russian attack on the Odessa port and grain infrastructure.
Now the situation is completely different. Putin’s press spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, announced two weeks ago that Russia was at war with Ukraine and its NATO allies. This was a clear shift from describing the fight with Ukraine as a Special Military Operation. The intense and varied attacks by Russia since July 6 on Kyiv and other key cities still held by Ukraine, marks a decisive shift by Russia in how it will manage the war with Ukraine in the coming weeks and months.
Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2026
The European Union has officially joined the war effort against Russia. This week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signed a “historic pact” with Ukraine to integrate the production of combat drones to strike Russia.
According to Euronews reporting, the pact also envisages the joint production of ballistic missiles.
This scaled-up war effort will be funded by the €90 billion loan that the EU is releasing to Ukraine. A bill that will be paid for by generations of European taxpayers.
Von der Leyen was greeted in Kiev by Ukraine’s unelected martial-law president, Vladimir Zelensky. That makes two people who do not have a democratic mandate making decisions that are driving Europe to all-out war with Russia. Von der Leyen is a political appointee. She is not elected by popular ballot. Formerly, she was Germany’s Minister of Defense, and not a particularly bright one either. Dogged by corruption scandals and abuse of power over procuring Covid-19 vaccines from Big Pharma, von der Leyen is an exemplar of “failing upwards.”
On her 11th visit to Kiev since the conflict escalated in February 2022, von der Leyen declared that the “tide is turning” in the NATO proxy war against Russia. She was referring to the increase in long-range air strikes on Russian territory and the release of €90 bn to fund the war.
In a public speech, she brazenly announced that the European Union was explicitly allied with Ukraine as a participant in the war.
“In Europe, we already have huge technological and industrial capacity that can be deployed. And we have safe and secure production sites that can help to scale up,” von der Leyen said.
She added: “But we do not have that battle-tested knowledge and expertise that Ukraine has forged. So the point I am making is that we need to combine our strengths. Together, we can work on joint production.”
The innovation, which von der Leyen and her NATO planners presumably think is ever-so smart, is that European countries will produce munitions that are “safe” from Russian retaliatory strikes. The drones and missiles will be transported to Ukraine, from where they can be launched to hit deep into Russian territory to target the capital, Moscow, and take out oil industrial facilities all over the country. In recent months, NATO-backed Ukrainian drones have killed hundreds of Russian civilians. Von der Leyen’s pact with Ukraine is giving a green light to intensify this terror campaign.
But it’s von der Leyen’s arrogant sense of impunity that is astounding and should be viewed as deeply disturbing. She apparently assumes that European countries can serve as an arsenal of weapons for Ukraine to attack Russia. Yet, in her view, Russia is not permitted to take retaliatory action against the EU (and NATO) as a participant in the war. This is insanely reckless and stupid.
Of course, the European Union, NATO, and the United States have been participants in the proxy war against Russia since their coup in Kiev in 2014 to install and weaponize a NeoNazi regime. That background of weaponization and ideological programming culminated in war erupting in 2022. The Collective West has supplied an estimated $400 billion to prop up the regime since 2022, has supplied NATO mercenaries and advisors, as well as providing targeting logistics and operational expertise for long-range missiles.
Ukraine has also signed bilateral military pacts with individual EU countries, such as Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway. Britain has signed a One Hundred Year Defense Pact. All of these arrangements provide weapons, warplanes, drones, and missiles.
However, the EU support that von der Leyen unveiled this week is a commitment from the entire 27-nation EU bloc to join the war on an industrial scale.
In April this year, the Russian Ministry of Defense published a list of European companies and their locations that it said were partners in Ukraine’s war effort. Russia said that these sites could henceforth be considered legitimate targets for retaliation. So far, Russia has refrained from directly striking any EU or NATO state. But how long this Russian restraint will last is a pressing question in the light of increasing provocation by the EU and NATO.
Von der Leyen has taken to describing the Ukrainian regime as a “net provider of security for Europe.” This is to supposedly justify European citizens enduring economic hardship as public monies are funnelled to the corrupt regime.
This week, on cue for the drone deal and fusing of the EU and Ukrainian economies, Zelensky reshuffled his Cabinet for the second time in only a matter of months in an attempt to give the impression that he was cleaning up notorious corruption. Prime Minister Yulia Syrvydenko was sacked because she was close to Zelensky’s former Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak, who was forced to quit owing to a massive corruption scandal involving military procurement. In his latest clean-up act, Zelensky made the mistake of sacking Defense Minister Myhailo Federov, sparking public protests in Kiev and other cities. Federov, who had only been in the job for six months, was seen as an earnest reformer. His efforts riled military commanders, such as Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, who want the graft gravy train to continue running. No surprise that Zelensky backed the old guard to stay in place, especially as the €90 bn EU freight car is soon to arrive in Kiev.
Indeed, the tide is turning, but not in the way that delusional von der Leyen imagines. Russian forces on the ground are wearing down the last NATO-backed Ukrainian defenses while ramped-up Russian air strikes are destroying drone-making centers in Kiev and other cities.
That is why the EU and NATO are innovating a new tactic of removing drone production sites from Ukraine and seemingly out of Russia’s reach by stationing these sites in European nations. The implicit idea is that the EU can scale up the war effort safely without suffering any consequences.
The Russophobic EU leadership is driving Europe to war against Russia, as Professor Richard Sakwa commented this week in an interview with Glenn Diesen. The decisions are being made autocratically without any democratic mandate. Effectively, the EU has become a dictatorship for war. Another manifestation of this was seen at the Bastille Day parade in Paris on July 14, when NATO troops joined French and Ukrainian regiments in a unified show of belligerence towards Russia.
And brain-dead bureaucrats like Ursula von der Leyen on her €400,ooo a-year salary are happily painting target signs across European nations.
This is not sleepwalking into war. The European elites’ eyes are wide open and crazed.
The Cradle | July 17, 2026
Pakistan and Kuwait have entered early-stage negotiations to expand defense cooperation, with Islamabad seeking deeper energy ties and greater investment from the Gulf monarchy in return, Reuters reported on 17 July.
“Kuwait’s wish list includes everything,” said a Pakistani security official familiar with the negotiations. “But let me be clear about one thing: We are not and we cannot consider a deployment of combat troops at this stage.”
One source confirmed the talks have covered defense procurement, but noted it was “not clear this will amount to a defense pact per se.”
In exchange for any deal, Islamabad wants expanded cooperation on energy security as it builds up its strategic oil and fuel reserves as part of a wider initiative led by Pakistan’s Energy Ministry.
Over the past year, Pakistan and the Gulf monarchies have moved toward new regional defense arrangements.
The realignment was accelerated by the US’s war on Iran, which saw Gulf countries absorb the brunt of the retaliatory impact, and called into question the reliability of the US as a defense partner.
Meanwhile, Islamabad commands one of the region’s largest armies and manufactures its own fighter jets, credentials that have positioned it as a potential supplement, or even alternative, to US protection.
For Kuwait, Pakistan represents a dependable partner, according to a source in the region familiar with Kuwaiti security planning.
“They are already in with the Saudis, they have a long history of defense development, they are Muslim Sunni, they have a good relationship with the Americans, so it’s not as sensitive as some other options,” the source said.
Turkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have been preparing a draft agreement for a three-way mutual defense pact, distinct from the existing accord between Islamabad and Riyadh.
Bahrain is pursuing a similar arrangement, one source said, while Jordan has signaled interest in a weapons and training deal.
Last year, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement committing each to treat an attack on one as an attack on both – a pact widely understood to place Riyadh under a de facto Pakistani nuclear umbrella, after Pakistan’s defense minister said all the country’s capabilities “will be made available under this agreement.”
Sputnik – 17.07.2026
Iran’s March drone and missile attacks disabled numerous critical US radars and forced it to “expend a significant portion of their air and missile defense stockpiles,” military expert and CAST security think tank senior research fellow Yuri Lyamin told Sputnik.
Lyamin pointed out, for example, that “the AN/TPY-2 radar in Jordan destroyed by Iranian strikes in March, was part of the American THAAD missile defense system battery providing cover for American bases in Jordan against medium-range ballistic missiles. The destruction of the radar effectively rendered the THAAD battery inoperable, as it’s used to detect and track targets and guides interceptor missiles to them.”
Fast forward the present, and Iran is freely targeting US barracks, logistics bases and Air Force facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain using Arash heavy drones.
Lack of effective resistance on the US’ part signals that whatever efforts the Pentagon took to restore regional capabilities (like transferring THAAD from South Korea) proved insufficient, Lyamin says.
“Iran is currently primarily targeting various US bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan. The combination varies daily, as the US operates multiple bases [in these countries]. The selection of specific targets depends both on the pre-defined target list at these bases, and on operational intelligence,” Lyamin says.
“Relentless Iranian attacks on US-operated bases in the region generally complicate US operations against Iran that rely on them, and force the US to expend significant forces and resources to protect them. I’d even say that some of the bases nearest to Iran are now causing more problems for the US than they’re worth. For example, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar was the largest US airbase in the region, but now the US has been forced to evacuate most of its aircraft because it’s too dangerous to keep them there.”
Arash drones have a range up to 2k km, variable warhead weight (up to 260 kg), and versions with advanced optoelectrical and other homing heads “for high-precision target engagement.” They are the Iranian Army’s long-range strike tool – distinct from the IRGC’s Shahed series of UAVs.
Glenn Diesen | July 16, 2026
Prof. John Mearsheimer discusses how to make sense of the U.S. going back to war against Iran, and Trump’s decision to deepen the U.S. involvement in the war against Russia. Prof. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Glenn Diesen | July 16, 2026
Senate blocked defense bill Monday amid frustration with administration’s return to war and lack of transparency
By Blaise Malley | Responsible Statecraft | July 15, 2026
Congress returned to Washington DC this week after its July 4 recess. With President Donald Trump having recently declared the memorandum of understanding with Iran “over” and with the two countries exchanging attacks, the war has predictably taken center stage.
Congressional Democrats have been mostly unified against the war, but this week has presented opportunities for members to use new vehicles to express their opposition via the power of the purse. On Tuesday, every present Democratic Senator voted to block debate over the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes the appropriation of Pentagon funds. The bill, which needed 60 votes to advance, failed by a 50-46 tally.
The NDAA typically proceeds in a relatively bipartisan manner, but the warning signs were apparent in June when nine Democrats voted against advancing the bill out of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). Several Democrats framed their opposition as, in part, a rejection of the war in Iran.
In advance of the vote, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), said the bill would “effectively green light Trump’s illegal Iran war.” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who noted that he typically votes in favor of the NDAA, said he would oppose it given that the legislature had not “even had an up or down vote to authorize this war in the first place.” Republicans charged Democrats with playing politics over the national security bill, with SASC chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss. ) calling it a “new low.”
There were other considerations at play as well, including the Trump administration’s ask for a $1.5 trillion defense budget and the lack of transparency surrounding the cost of the war with Iran. On Tuesday, Jules Hurst, testifying to become the Pentagon comptroller, told SASC members that he did not have an update on the $29 billion price tag for the war, since he had not been performing the role since May 20, when his term as acting comptroller came to an end.
Sources said that Republicans’ approach to funding bills has created conditions in which Democrats may stall or even stop defense appropriations legislation.
With Democrats seemingly dug in on blocking the NDAA until the questions surrounding an Iran war authorization are settled, the must-pass bill’s future appears murky. “The Trump administration has not meaningfully consulted Congress on the Iran conflict or engaged Democrats on broader budget strategy, leaving its budget plans and legislative priorities stalled,” a senior congressional aide told RS. “Republicans now face the possibility of flat funding for the Department of Defense under a continuing resolution, or potentially an extended shutdown.”
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don’t miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
In addition, a group of Senators, led by Van Hollen and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), raised concerns about an amendment to the NDAA that would more deeply integrate U.S. and Israeli intelligence. They sent a letter to their colleagues last week urging them to block the legislation until they could hold further discussion regarding those measures.
But congressional sources said that the timing of the vote — shortly after Trump’s announcement that the agreement with Iran was dead — contributed to Democrats voting unanimously against the NDAA. Supporters of ending the war with Iran interpreted the vote as a signal that the war was increasingly unpopular and that Congress should keep up political pressure on the president.
“The war with Iran is incredibly unpopular with the American people and Democrats were right to pick up on that and use this opportunity to vote accordingly,” one senior Democratic Senate staffer told RS. In order to keep up pressure on the administration, the staffer argued, Democrats “should announce publicly that they won’t support any measure to advance the NDAA until Trump resumes negotiations with Iran and gets a deal done.”
National Iranian American Council president Jamal Abdi wrote a statement that urged members to not advance any “other major national legislation (…) as long as this unauthorized war continues without an explicit prohibition on funding it.”
That major legislation may include the administration’s roughly $88 billion DoD supplemental funding request, much of which is intended to fund the Iran war. The administration made the request late last month, though its future on the floor remains unclear as Republican members remain frustrated by a lack of information from the Pentagon regarding the request’s details. As the Stimson Center’s Julia Gledhill told RS in June, “the supplemental doesn’t even detail what weapons the Pentagon wants to buy.”
Up until this point, Democratic opposition has primarily been registered through a string of votes on war powers resolutions. Both the House and the Senate passed concurrent resolutions in June to push Trump to wind down the war absent authorization from the legislature. Congressional Democrats are reportedly considering taking the issue to the courts to compel the administration to comply. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has said that he will introduce a new War Powers Resolution this week.
The administration, for its part, informed Congress of the restarting of the war on July 10, which it says should also restart the 60-day war powers clock, though legal experts widely say that this is an incorrect interpretation.
Blaise Malley is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. His writing has appeared in The Nation, The New Republic, The American Prospect, The American Conservative, and elsewhere.