I guess this signals a shift in how the Senator's office responds. No biggie. It just adds a little time to my responses.
Just like this response from exactly a week ago, I was sent a video link. It was sent July 8.
And here's a transcript:
A number of you have sent in emails or sent letters or made phone calls expressing your concern or at least your questions about President Trump's recent actions in Iran and the fear that America would be pulled into another forever war.
So first of all, I want to thank you for engaging, expressing your concerns, your opinions, and your questions. You know, I was elected to represent every single Pennsylvanian and it really helps me do my job to be in constant touch with you and to be able to hear what's on your mind.
Here's my perspective on this: I was actually a soldier who had boots on the ground in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia and Iraq in the first Gulf War. I never imagined there'd be a day where the Iranian regime, the leader of terrorism around the world that had threatened the possibility of a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel and to destroy the United States—what Iran called the Great Satan—Iran that had supported all these terrorist proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iran that had killed thousands of Americans in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Syria—that Iran would ultimately have been weakened by the unbelievable attacks by the Israeli military and also the nuclear capacity really dramatically diminished and eliminated by the strength and the attack that took place.
Only the United States could have done what President Trump did with that very focused B2 attacks on the Iranian facilities.
I'm in 100% support of that.
And it's very different from the forever wars, the 20 years—which, listen, I share with a lot of Americans the deep skepticism of getting involved again in the Middle East and the risk to American lives and treasure. Pennsylvania suffered that more than anybody.
But what President Trump did here, I think, was incredibly wise and courageous. First of all, he offered Iran every opportunity for a peaceful resolution. He made it clear we have to have the dismantlement of nuclear weapons and the elimination of that enrichment capability. He made it clear that if that action didn't come through peace, it would come through action. And that action would be targeted just on eliminating that nuclear capability on the part of Iran, not a war against the Iranian people. And he made it clear that he wasn't seeking regime change, that he was trying to avoid the threat – talk about America First - the threat to Americans of Iran having nuclear weapons with its desire to destroy the West and America in particular.
So I think that mission was executed with incredible competence, incredible strength, and clarity, and really resets the table. It's a new chessboard in the Middle East that I hope and think will offer opportunity for peace.
This doesn't mean the risk from Iran is gone. We've got to be vigilant on our bases. We've got to be vigilant at home against the risk of a terrorist attack. But we're in an entirely different world than we were just a few short days ago because of the leadership and the wisdom of the Trump administration, the incredible bravery and effectiveness of the Israeli military, our closest ally in the Middle East. So we've made huge progress and I think these actions are going to keep us out of a forever war, not get us in one.
He's responding to this blog post from June 23. As with that response, keep in mind not only what Sen. McCormick says but also (and this is much more important) what Sen. McCormick has chosen not to say.
In that blog post, I asked about the dissonance between how Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and then how President Trump himself said it is, adding, "I don't care what she said."
I asked which one is true.
I also asked, given the War Powers Act, whether the Congress should have been involved in (or at least notified of) the decision to bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.
The Senator doesn't specifically answer the Trump/Gabbard question but from the transcript, he obviously sides with Trump. He said:
He made it clear we have to have the dismantlement of nuclear weapons and the elimination of that enrichment capability.
He's also 100% supports Trump's decision to bomb the nuclear facilities.
A little more on this later.
And the Senator doesn't address my question about the War Powers Act at all.
As a reminder, the text of the act includes:
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
And:
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. [Emphasis added.]
None of which actually took place here.
So it's safe to suppose that it's yet another law that Trump ignore with no accountability from his allies in Congress.
Oh, and Senator McCormick is simply wrong about regime change. He said:
And [President Trump] made it clear that he wasn't seeking regime change...
And yet Reuters reported (as I pointed out in my original posting):
U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday raised the question of regime change in Iran following U.S. strikes against key military sites over the weekend, as senior officials in his administration warned Tehran against retaliation."It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" Trump wrote on his social media platform.
Sen. McCormick got it wrong. Even if Trump back pedaled on regime change, none of it was "clear."
In any event, this whole discussion side steps the fact that in 2018, Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
For reference, let's look at how, in 2015, CNN reported on some of the previsions of the plan:
Iran's centrifuges will only enrich uranium to 3.67% -- enough for civil use to power parts of the country, but not enough to build a nuclear bomb. That agreement lasts 15 years. And Tehran has agreed not to build any new uranium enrichment facilities over that period as well. The 3.67% is a major decline, and it follows Iran's move to water down its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium last year. In addition, Iran will reduce its current stockpile of 10,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to 300 kilograms for 15 years.
And:
Iran's Fordow nuclear reactor would stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. It will not have fissile material at the facility, but it will be able to keep 1,000 centrifuges there. Fordo, one of the country's biggest reactors, is buried more than 200 feet under the side of a mountain and was hidden from the international community until the U.S. revealed it in 2009.
And so on.
Trump withdrew from the plan, calling it "one-sided" for some reason.
It's not difficult to see what that led to afterwards.
From The Council on Foreign Relations:
In response to the other parties’ actions, which Tehran claimed amounted to breaches of the deal, Iran started exceeding agreed-upon limits to its stockpile of low-enriched uranium in 2019, and began enriching uranium to higher concentrations (though still far short of the purity required for weapons). It also began developing new centrifuges to accelerate uranium enrichment; resuming heavy water production at its Arak facility; and enriching uranium [PDF] at Fordow, which rendered the isotopes produced there unusable for medical purposes.
And:
In 2020, Iran took more steps away from its nuclear pledges, following a series of attacks on its interests. In January, after the United States’ targeted killing of top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, Iran announced that it would no longer limit its uranium enrichment. In October, it began constructing a centrifuge production center at Natanz to replace one that was destroyed months earlier in an attack it blamed on Israel. And in November, in response to the assassination of a prominent nuclear scientist, which it also attributed to Israel, Iran’s parliament passed a law that led to a substantial boost in uranium enrichment at Fordow.
Tehran has increasingly limited the IAEA’s ability to inspect its facilities since Washington withdrew from the nuclear deal, though it pledged in March 2023 to boost cooperation with the agency. The commitment came months after IAEA inspectors detected uranium particles enriched to 83.7 percent at Fordow, prompting international concern.
And so on.
However much Iran was increasing its nuclear programs after 2018, those increases were due - in no small part - to Trump administration actions removing restrictions on those programs.
Trump - again, in no small part - created the situation in Iran that he felt he had to fix with B2 bombers - all side stepping the War Powers Act.
And when Senator McCormick says:
He made it clear we have to have the dismantlement of nuclear weapons and the elimination of that enrichment capability.
And yet failed to point out that Trump actually stopped the Obama-era plan that was doing exactly that, he failed to fully inform his constituents.
Doncha think?
So what was the point of the video email?
