CNN Host Presses GOP on Iran War Claim

CNN’s John Berman pressed Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) on his assertion that the U.S. is already engaged in a war with Iran, a claim McCormick used to justify potential military intervention following recent events involving Israel. During an appearance on “CNN News Central,” McCormick argued that Congress should authorize any U.S. involvement in Israel’s campaign against Iran, but maintained that a state of conflict already exists. He cited Iran’s rhetoric – labeling the U.S. the “great Satan” and Israel the “little Satan” – and the provision of weapons to groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as evidence.

“They have been at war with us, whether we realize it or not,” McCormick stated, suggesting this ongoing conflict warrants a response if diplomatic efforts fail and Iran continues its nuclear program and threats to allies.

Berman directly challenged this characterization, repeatedly questioning McCormick’s claim of an existing war. “You keep saying that they’ve been at war, whether we realize it or not,” he pressed.

The exchange highlighted a broader debate about congressional authority regarding war powers. McCormick acknowledged a historical trend of presidential overreach, noting that Congress hasn’t formally declared war since World War II, despite U.S. involvement in conflicts in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He expressed a desire for Congress to “grab back the representation” and vote on the matter, stating, “Actually, I think that’s the best thing for us moving forward.”

Despite his call for congressional involvement, McCormick indicated he would likely support military action. He acknowledged concerns about escalating conflict but emphasized that American troops, including Georgians, have been killed by weapons originating from Tehran.

The conversation underscores a critical point: the justification for military intervention is often framed by pre-existing narratives of conflict. While McCormick points to Iranian actions and rhetoric as evidence of an ongoing war, framing the situation as such inherently lowers the threshold for further military engagement. It’s a dangerous precedent to declare a state of war based on indirect actions and ideological labels, especially when it circumvents the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration. The debate isn’t simply about if the U.S. should intervene, but how the justification for intervention is constructed and whether it adheres to established legal and constitutional principles.