Any analysis regarding constitutional war powers jurisdiction, and the statutory War Powers Act of 1973, must center with three considerations:

1. the text of the resolution being offered
2. the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions it implicates
3. a clear discernment of the classified facts of the specific conflict in question, including the short and long-term plans and intentions of the Executive Branch.  

In the case of H.Con.Res. 38, we need not proceed past step one.

The resolution is written so broadly that it would require the immediate termination of “all hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government,” language that could encompass not only direct military engagement, but also long-standing counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber operations targeting the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies.

As a senior Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Chairman of the CIA Subcommittee, I oversee many of the programs that would be swept up by this resolution’s recklessly over-broad language. Voting for it would effectively terminate critical counter-Iran operations with any nexus to the military — including counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cybersecurity programs that Congress has funded with bipartisan support for decades, in response to the clear and well-documented threat posed by the Iranian regime.

Our national security posture must always be matched by fidelity to our Constitution.  Any sustained or expanded military engagement should be done with the advice and consent of Congress. The American people deserve clarity of mission, defined objectives, and disciplined oversight.

H.Con.Res. 38, however, fails that test.

It is irresponsibly drafted and dangerously overbroad. Its sweeping language could jeopardize decades-long CIA and DoD programs that protect the American people and U.S. service members in the Middle East from attacks carried out by the Iranian regime—the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism—as well as its network of terrorist proxies. These programs exist for one reason: to stop those who seek to harm Americans before they have the chance to do so. Weakening them would not bring peace. It would only make our nation—and the brave men and women serving in uniform abroad—more vulnerable to those who wish us harm.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, I served in several Middle-East war zones as an Al-Qaeda Interrogator, where I witnessed firsthand the atrocities committed by the Iranian regime against our troops.  I became keenly aware of the incredible necessity of our Iranian counter-terrorism, counterintelligence and cyber security  programs in order to protect our troops stationed in the region. 

To essentially abolish those safeguards through a poorly worded and overly-broad resolution is not something that I, nor anyone who understands our national security apparatus, should or can support.  

America should always pursue peace. Peace is preserved not by weakening our defenses, but by keeping them strong enough to protect the people we are sworn to serve.