At 60% concentration? Don’t they use 3-5% for their nuclear reactors? Anyway, the U.S. Senate voted to limit President Trump’s ability to conduct military operations against Iran without congressional authorization after four Republicans joined with Democrats in a stinging rebuke to Trump
a week after he
signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran.
Good.
In the spirit of closing the barn door after…the resolution passed by the Senate Tuesday afternoon, in a 50-48 vote, directs the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities against Iran unless explicitly authorized by Congress, other than to defend America, an ally or partner from “imminent attack.”
Rebuke comes a week after the president signed framework with Tehran
apple.news
You have noticed that I’m not exactly a Trump fanboy? If not….well, I’m not. I know it’s subtle but…
I've noticed. I'm in the same boat.
I concur with your assessment of the situation.
It's been ongoing for a a decade or two.
Can I safely assume the above didn’t happen? Anyway, the House passed the same resolution on June 3, in a 215-208 vote, with four Republicans joining Democrats in support. The agreement announced by Trump earlier this month involves lifting the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and setting the stage for extended talks on Iran’s nuclear program, administration officials have said, and it’s going swimmingly.
It wasn't necessary when I've know this for forty some odd years.
Context and Purpose
During the late 1940s and early Cold War, the US sought to secure strategic access in the Middle East to counter potential Soviet expansion, particularly amid concerns over oil resources, regional influence, and long-range bombing capabilities. The US built and operated Dhahran Airfield (in eastern Saudi Arabia, near the Persian Gulf) starting in the mid-1940s.322a3f
WWII origins with Cold War pivot: Originally planned as a staging point for Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union and operations against Japan, the base was completed too late for major WWII use. Post-1945, it gained importance for containing Soviet influence. By 1949, it was one of the few airfields in the region capable of supporting US B-29 bombers, serving as a forward position roughly 1,000 miles from the Soviet border.76d2da
Strategic role: It supported US containment strategy by providing a foothold for potential operations, intelligence, and deterrence against Soviet moves into the Gulf or toward key oil fields. This aligned with broader US efforts (e.g., Truman Doctrine, alliances) to prevent Soviet footholds in the region.0c5bce
Agreement details: The US operated it under agreements with Saudi Arabia (initially post-WWII leases), paying rent while Saudi ownership was retained. It was a key early US military presence in the Arabian Peninsula. The pact ended in 1962 under King Saud.254b15
Other Relevant US Facilities
The US had limited permanent major bases in the Middle East proper during most of the Cold War (unlike in Europe or Asia), focusing instead on access, partnerships, and limited facilities to avoid overcommitment while countering Soviet influence:69107c
Incirlik Air Base (Turkey): Established in the early 1950s as part of NATO; primarily oriented northward against the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact but later supported Middle East operations.
Bahrain (Juffair/Naval Support Activity): Longstanding US naval presence (from the 1940s onward), used for Gulf operations.
Other sites included listening posts in Iran or temporary access elsewhere, but nothing as directly matching a "preempt the Soviets" base narrative as Dhahran in the core Arab Gulf region.b9320c
Broader US policy emphasized alliances (e.g., Baghdad Pact/CENTO), aid, and denial strategies (like oil facility sabotage plans if Soviets invaded) over large permanent bases until later decades.5c1771
This fits the "curtail Soviets from doing so first" motive: securing a strategic airfield in a vital oil-rich area before Soviet influence could expand there.
US concerns were heightened by events like the 1946 Iran crisis (Soviet troops in northern Iran) and general containment doctrine.
“The measure that passed both the Senate and House this month is a “concurrent resolution,” which isn’t sent to the president for his veto or signature.
View attachment 34870The view of most legal scholars is that the resolution wouldn’t be binding as a result of a Supreme Court ruling in the 1980s, which found that such “concurrent resolutions” are unconstitutional legislative vetoes, said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group.” I wonder what Trump’s Blanche will have to say about this?
Everyone is pissed off over being roped into this mess on behalf off Israel.
Don't shocked if someone steps in to get Israel out of Lebanon. Enough is enough. Greater Israel isn't going to happen.
Maybe Iran can take the excess bourbon that Canada isn’t buying? 
