By Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans backed President Donald Trump's military campaign against Iran on Wednesday, voting to block a bipartisan resolution aiming to stop the air war and require that any hostilities against Iran be authorized by Congress.
The Senate voted 53 to 47 not to advance the resolution, largely along party lines, with all but one Republican voting against the procedural motion and all but one Democrat supporting it.
The latest effort by Democrats and a few Republicans to rein in President Donald Trump's repeated foreign troop deployments, the war powers resolution was described by sponsors as a bid to take back Congress' responsibility to declare war, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
Opponents rejected this, insisting that Trump's action was legal and within his right as commander in chief to protect the United States by ordering limited strikes. They accused supporters of the resolution of endangering U.S. forces.
"This is not a forever war, indeed not even close to it. This is going to end very quickly," Republican Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech against the resolution.
The measure had not been expected to succeed. Trump's fellow Republicans hold slim majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and have blocked previous resolutions seeking to curb his war powers.
Backers of the resolution said they would not give up, and even some Republicans who voted to block it said they would press for public testimony from Trump aides about the administration's Iran strategy, especially if the conflict lasts for weeks, as Trump has predicted.
Debate about Trump's buildup of military assets in the Middle East, and American and Israeli strikes on Iran has centered on whether Trump is pulling the country into another "forever war" like the long conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Today senators face a choice, stand with the American people who are tired of war in the Middle East, or side with Donald Trump, who bumbled America into another war most Americans fiercely oppose," said Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, a co-sponsor of the resolution.
With control of Congress potentially shifting to Democrats in November's midterm elections, a prolonged Iran war could concern voters. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday showed that only one in four Americans approved of U.S. strikes on Iran and about half believe Trump is too willing to use military force.
Besides the Iran campaign, U.S. forces have been firing since September at boats in the southern Caribbean and eastern Pacific in what the administration calls an effort to deter Venezuelan drug trafficking. Trump in January also sent troops into Venezuela to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
'IT'S A WAR'
The U.S.-Israel war on Iran has already led to damage in Iran, Israel and throughout the Middle East, and claimed U.S. casualties.
"It's a war," said Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a lead sponsor, in a speech urging support for the resolution.
He said he had appealed to Trump officials to come to Congress for a war authorization during a classified briefing for lawmakers on Tuesday. "Your escalating pattern of military action without seeking our approval convinces me that you believe you never need to come to Congress, to wage war against anyone anywhere," Kaine said.
The House is expected to vote on a similar Iran war powers resolution on Thursday.
On Tuesday, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said he thought there were enough votes to defeat the resolution in the House, describing it as an attempt to push something that could put U.S. troops in harm's way and inspire Iranian forces.
"Imagine a scenario where Congress would vote to tell the commander-in-chief that he was no longer allowed to complete this mission. That would be a very dangerous thing," he told reporters after a classified briefing on the Iran conflict from top administration officials.
Even if a resolution were to pass both the Senate and House, it would not go into effect unless it could garner two-thirds majorities in both chambers to survive an expected Trump veto.
(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Clarence Fernandez and Alistair Bell)
