Protect our country. Madam president , quorum call be suspended. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Rubio in a few minutes were going to vote on a resolution to begin debate on it. What most people would think by reading it is this is a resolution to diminish the chance of war with iran. If this resolution passes, i would argue that even this debate were having now to some extent potentially increases the chances of war, and ill explain why in a moment. First, let me start out by saying i dont question the sponsors and people who are in support of this. These are people with a long history who want to concert congressional oversight over the conflict of armed warfare and its certainly something i respect. The problem is that their intentions and how this in how this will be perceived by the audience that it matters most now, and that is the leadership of iran, perception and reality are two different things. What is the perception . I can tell you i went on line to see if anything was written about it. Heres what i found. Just one headline, thats all i needed. This broadly captures the way it will be talked about in the press and all over the world. Heres the headline from politico, senate to rein in trump war powers after iran strike. The first paragraph goes on to say, senate set to pass bipartisan resolution to limit President Trump ready to launch military operations against iran weeks after the u. S. Killed a top iranian general. Thats the opening paragraph of that story. Thats basically the way it will be reported. Ill explain why its a problem. One of irans objectives in the middle east is to push the United States out of the region. They dont want us in iraq to help the iraqis fight isis, they dont want us in syria. Them dont want us to have military basis anywhere in the region, including about bahraine one of our naval fleets is hawrtd. They do not want us in the middle east. And their strategy to drive us out is attacks conducted primarily by surrogates, they have created groups, sponsored groups that they arm, their strategy is to use those groups to kill americans, and their reasoning is, number one, they used these groups, it gives them deniability, so the world cant condemn them. They will say it wasnt us, it was a shia militia or some other group that did it. It gives them some level of plausible deniability. They calculate if americans start to die in the middle east, the American People will demand that we withdraw from the middle east. Its a pressure tactic they are trying to institute. They do direct attacks. But ill remind you guys a few months ago they were putting mines on commercial vessels and there were people in the city arguing weve seen no evidence it was the iranians, it wasnt luxembourg or the belgians. Thats the kind of denial attack they seek to conduct and kill americans. The person that rain that program was general soleimani. When i say he was a general, he wasnt really a general, he was a terrorist with a uniform on. That is the Campaign Iran is trying to carry out. When they decide what kind of attacks to conduct against americans, they weigh a couple of things. The first is, how Many Americans can we kill before america retallates because they dont retaliates because they dont want a war with america. Its a war they cant and will not win. They are trying to see how Many Americans they can kill, how much they can get away with before triggering a direct response from the United States. And part of the calculus they use to determine that is our domestic political environment. I believe there is strong evidence that indicates, and i say this from everything you see, that iran also miscalculated once. They thought that soleimani could travel the region with impunity and plan attacks to kill americans and nothing happened. And they were wrong and they miscalculated. It was evident they miscalculated by the things they did after that they were shocked that the president took the steps that he took and hopefully it reset their deterrence level. Were in a period of time right now where it seems from all indications that iran at least in the short term has decided to stand down on some of these attacks, but its not because they suddenly found peace in their hearts, they are hoping that the political process inside of iraq will force us to leave there. Eventually, if that doesnt happen, it they are going back to these attacks, they continue to plan them on a regular basis. They continue to prepare for those attacks to happen and what is going to map when that moment comes and they determine, we believe that the threshold of attack, meaning the number of america we kill, the number of attacks we conduct, how brazen they are, we think we can get away with a certain level because in america in america the president , both members of both parties, do not want him to attack us. In fact, they would calculate, we can even make it deniable, that we can create some doubt that we werent behind it and was some our group that was going to attack us anyway, its going to be harder for him to respond. Thats not the reality. The reality of this administration is the reality of anyone who would occupy that position would be, and that is if they know and they believe american lives are at risk and they have a chance to disrupt it, they will do so. I know this president would and if americans are attacked and harmed, that there would be a strong response in realation. The president has the constitutional power, and i would argue, the duty to do both of those things. The problem is the iranians may not believe it. They may say to themselves, its an election year, the president doesnt wanter start a war, there are members of both parties who have, as politico headline said, reined in his war powers and decided he can strike or conduct multiple strikes and terrorist attacks and miscalculate and elicit a response, a strong response to which they would have to respond, to which we would have to respond. That is how a war starts. Thats the danger embedded in this resolution, not the intention of its sponsors who i truly do believe, i know they are standing for a constitutional principle they believe in. They are not the problem. The problem is how this is going to be portrayed and you how and how the iranians are going to take it and what it will lead them to conclude they will get away with. And thats why i say that passing this, having this go into effect even if the president vetoes it, sends a message, whether you like it or not, and with all due respect i say this, whether you like it or not, the message this sends is that in america, members of both parties do not want the president to respond militarily to an attack and do not want the president to act proactively to prevent one, and that may not be the intention of the sponsors. I dont believe that it is. But that will be how its portrayed and thats a chance we cannot take. We are playing with fire. An iranian miscalculation, an attack that goes beyond our red lines on what we would tolerate is going to lead to a strong american response to which they would have to respond to which we would respond in kind and suddenly thats how you find yourself into an escalating conflict and even a war. I hope that those thinking about supporting this will rethink their position because while your positions might be pure in terms of our constitutional duties, the Foreign Policy impact, the real Foreign Policy impact that even this debate is going to have is to instill in the minds of some in iran that there are certain kinds of attacks they can get away with and the president s hands are tied by politics in washington. And that is a dangerous proposition and a fire with which we should not play. Iran,t last month the United States and iran came frighteningly close to war. If any of irans missiles had killed american soldiers at those military bases in iraq, President Trump would have reap acted very would have reacted very differently and most likely without consulting congress. And i would suggest rathern