Sen. Tim Kaine believes momentum is building behind an effort to require President Trump to end US military involvement in Iran, saying he is nearing the number of Republican votes needed to pass a war powers resolution in the Senate.

The Virginia Democrat said supporters of the measure are encouraged by recent developments and believe they may soon secure enough bipartisan backing to move the legislation forward. The proposal seeks to halt American participation in a conflict that has now entered its 15th week.

“We think we can have a narrow win,” Kaine said. “I don’t have one absolutely pinned down, but I think I’m close.”

The legislation relies on the War Powers Act of 1973, a law designed to limit prolonged military engagements without congressional approval. If enacted, it would direct the president to withdraw US forces from the conflict absent specific authorization from Congress.

Kaine and other Democrats contend that lawmakers, not just the White House, should have a decisive voice in determining whether American troops remain engaged in hostilities involving Iran.

The effort has already attracted support from four Republican senators. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana voted to advance the measure out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Despite those gains, supporters face an uphill climb.

Even if the resolution passes the Senate, it would still have to clear the Republican-controlled House before reaching President Trump’s desk. Trump would be widely expected to veto the measure, creating another major obstacle.

To override a presidential veto, the Constitution requires two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress—a threshold that currently appears far out of reach.

Many Republicans continue to strongly support Trump’s approach toward Iran and oppose any effort to constrain the administration’s military options.

Sen. John Cornyn argued that now is not the moment to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime.

“I want President Trump to finish the job,” Cornyn told The Hill. “I’m very dubious about any agreement that you’d get with this radical regime because they won’t abide by it.”

Cornyn also expressed skepticism that Tehran would honor future commitments, warning against allowing Iran to retain strategic leverage over the Strait of Hormuz or maintain access to enriched uranium that could eventually support a renewed nuclear weapons effort.

Other Republican senators have characterized the proposal as more symbolic than substantive.

Sen. Todd Young of Indiana questioned what advocates of the resolution envision happening if American forces are ordered to leave the region immediately.

“All I can think of are the dangers associated with immediate withdrawal,” Young said.

The dispute reflects a broader debate in Congress over its constitutional authority regarding military action. As the conflict has continued beyond the 60-day period referenced in the War Powers Act, lawmakers have increasingly questioned the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.

Opponents of the resolution, however, argue that limiting the president’s authority during an active international confrontation could weaken America’s position and send the wrong signal to adversaries.

The debate unfolds as Trump continues to increase pressure on Tehran through a combination of military operations, economic measures, and diplomatic demands. The president has repeatedly warned Iranian leaders that they will “pay the price” if they continue delaying negotiations.

For now, Democrats appear to be making incremental gains in their effort to build bipartisan support. Nevertheless, Trump’s strategy toward Iran continues to command significant support among Republicans who believe maintaining maximum pressure remains the most effective way to protect US interests and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

{Matzav.com}