In a rare moment of bipartisan unity, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are joining forces to prevent the United States from entering the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. At the center of the effort is the newly proposed Bipartisan War Powers Resolution, introduced by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and co-led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California.

The resolution would prohibit U.S. military involvement in the Israel-Iran war without explicit Congressional authorization — a bold stance that is gaining traction among progressives, libertarians, and foreign policy skeptics alike.

“This Is Not Our War”
Rep. Massie announced the resolution on X (formerly Twitter), writing:

“This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. I’m introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution.”

The resolution, which is classified as a privileged measure, must receive a vote once formally introduced — meaning lawmakers will have to go on record about whether the U.S. should get directly involved in the Middle East conflict.

Progressive Support Grows
The move is quickly gathering support from progressive Democrats.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez signaled her approval by responding simply:

“Signing on.”

Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, also expressed strong support, referencing the U.S.’s fraught history of military interventions:

“I look forward to supporting this War Powers Resolution,” she wrote. “The American people aren’t falling for it again. We were lied to about ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in Iraq that killed millions + forever changed lives. It’s unconst’l for Trump to go to war without a vote in Congress.”

Khanna added his voice as co-lead:

“No war in Iran. It’s time for every member to go on record. Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?”

Republican Opposition Holds the Line
Despite the bipartisan nature of the bill, not all Republicans are on board.

New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, recently endorsed by former President Trump, rejected the measure outright.

“If AOC and Massie are a yes, that’s a good bet that I’ll be a no,” Lawler wrote on X. “Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea are not our friends or our allies… A nuclear Iran will seek to eradicate Israel and all but ensure WWIII. We cannot allow that to happen. We must stand with Israel.”

Senate Companion Bill Introduced
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia introduced a parallel joint resolution calling on the President to terminate U.S. military involvement in hostilities with Iran unless authorized by Congress.

“It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States,” Kaine said in a press release. “The recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict.”

Kaine emphasized that the resolution would not prevent military action if needed — but would require Congress to debate and vote, in accordance with the Constitution.

“The American people have no interest in sending servicemembers to fight another forever war in the Middle East.”

Trump’s Stance Remains Ambiguous
Amid speculation that President Trump left the G7 summit in Canada early to work on a cease-fire, the president dismissed the claims during an overnight flight back to Washington.

“We’re looking at better than a cease-fire,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “We’re not looking for a cease-fire. I didn’t say that I was looking for a cease-fire.”

When pressed on what “better than a cease-fire” means, Trump responded:

“An end. A real end, not ceasefire. An end. Giving up entirely is also an option.”

His cryptic remarks have fueled further uncertainty about the administration’s true intentions, particularly given the rising tension in the Middle East and the increasing calls for a constitutional check on executive war powers.

What Happens Next?
With both House and Senate resolutions in motion, Congress may soon be forced to take a public stand on whether to allow U.S. forces to engage in military action against Iran — a vote that could shape American foreign policy for years to come.

And as bipartisan support for reasserting Congressional war powers grows, a broader conversation is emerging: Should the U.S. continue its long-standing role as global enforcer, or is it time to step back and let diplomacy take the lead?