This concurrent resolution directs the president, pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act, to terminate the use of U.S. military forces "in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military" unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of U.S. forces.

The termination would not apply if the use of U.S. military forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or U.S. forces themselves, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

The measure would not apply to U.S. military forces engaged in operations directed at al-Qaeda or associated forces.

Supporters of the resolution, primarily Democrats, argue that U.S. military action against Iran has never been authorized by Congress, and that the 2001 congressional authorization for war in Afghanistan and global terrorism and the 2002 authorization for Iraq do not apply. President Trump has proven to be what his critics always feared: too impetuous, too ignorant of history, and too volatile to be entrusted with grave issues of national security, they say. His actions have unleashed powerful forces in an already tenuous region — forces that could drag the United States into an unwarranted and unnecessary war of our own making. As Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. argued this week: one would have to be "brain-dead' to think a maximum pressure strategy toward Iran that includes leaving the nuclear deal, imposing an effective "trade embargo," and killing the country's second-most powerful official would persuade Tehran to return to the negotiating table.

Moreover, by classifying the administration's reasons for ordering the strike against Soleimani in its War Powers submission to Congress, they sat that the White House has heightened skepticism about the real reasons for its actions — particularly for those who remember how the Bush administration manipulated U.S. intelligence findings to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They say the president's stated willingness to engage in war crimes by targeting civilian and other cultural sites has damaged the perception of the United States throughout the world, arguing that no president has unlimited powers to wage war, especially one so demonstrably ill suited to be Commander-in-Chief. Rather than extricating U.S. forces from the Middle East as he said he would during the 2016 campaign, they say President Trump's actions are likely to deepen U.S. involvement in the region, isolate the United States from its friends and allies, provide a lifeline to Teheran's terrorist regime and lead to more U.S. deaths.

Opponents of the resolution argue that activating the War Powers Act would tie the president's hands precisely at a time when he needs maximum flexibility to deal with the current crisis. The measure represents an unwarranted abuse of a privileged War Powers procedure which would create a dangerous precedent that could severely hamstring future presidents, diminish U.S. security and provide the Iranian regime with breathing room to plan additional attacks, they say. Targeting Soleimani was a bold act that other presidents have not, and would not have, attempted — an act that will restore a measure of deterrence against an enemy state that has refused to abide by international norms. Most Americans appreciate the president's show of strength, they say, arguing that he was fully justified in striking Soleimani in response to Iran's repeated, deadly attacks on Americans — attacks that Soleimani and Iran were planning to continue.

They say the Obama Administration was all too willing to countenance Iranian aggression and turn a blind eye to Iranian terror, calling the 2015 nuclear accord with Teheran inadequate at best and saying there is little doubt the money Obama gave Iran and his lifting of sanctions fueled Soleimani's ongoing terrorist aggression in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. Rather than having no plan going forward, the president has already shown a willingness to de-escalate by stating "We must also make a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper, and take advantage of its enormous untapped potential." Noting that Soleimani had large amounts of American blood on his hands, they say the president's decision to preempt additional bloodshed should be applauded, not condemned. Rather than continuing to appease Teheran and engender more terror, like previous administrations, the president's bold action will ultimately save lives; at this point in time we should be united as Americans, not divided.