Thread by @rgoodlaw

<Thread>

“A fundamental revision of existing legal foundations for military action against Iran that can be undertaken by this and future presidents.”

My take on NEW—and legally flawed—White House report on actions against #Iran and #Soleimani strike.

justsecurity.org/68594/white-ho…

2. New White House report conspicuously drops any reference to “imminence” of Soleimani threat.

What's at stake: This means the White House is claiming authority to strike #Iran again with no threat of imminent attack (and with no prior congressional authority).

3. White House report suggests US can hold Iran directly responsible for “support” to militias.

What’s at stake: That's a heck of a low threshold and could boomerang.

Does Trump want US to be held directly responsible for support to Syrian Kurds, for Saudi bombing in #YemenWar?

4. White House report claims Congress has already authorized military actions against Iran under 2002 authorization for war against ... Saddam Hussein.

Nuts.

Close observers will see White House theory applies to very broad-based uses of force, not just unit self-defense.

5. White House report (in combination with a little noticed OMB statement on Jan. 27) also claims ... get this ...

that Congress's 2002 authorization also allows the Trump team to engage in military action against Kataib Hezbollah, a formal part of #Iraqi state's armed forces.

5. White House position on #Soleimani strike runs afoul of UN Charter. My article references writings by @oonahathaway @AdHaque110 @rachelv12 @marty_lederman.

Special note: The president's Article II constitutional authority depends on compliance with UN Charter in this case.

6. There's a lot more to say on the new White House notice on use of force against Iran. I poured most of my thoughts into this long @just_security article.

Looking forward to @SecPompeo testifying.

Mark your calendar: House Foreign Affairs Committee, Friday, Feb. 28.

<end>