Progressive Democrats fume over Houthi strikes as Republicans offer rare praise

Progressive Democrats have harshly criticised the US decision to launch retaliatory strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

They argued, with support from some Republicans, that President Joe Biden violated the US Constitution by not seeking congressional approval first.

But several Republicans offered rare praise of the administration, calling it an "overdue" act of deterrence.

The president on Thursday called the precision strikes a "defensive action".

In a joint statement with coalition partners - the UK, Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands - the White House said it had acted "in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, consistent with the UN charter".

Though Mr Biden notified Congress prior to the strikes launched on 16 Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen, he did not seek its authorisation.

Several progressives in the president's party fumed that his actions violated Article I of the Constitution, which requires that the power to declare war be granted by Congress.

"This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution," Pramila Jayapal, chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

"The President needs to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another middle east conflict," said California Congressman Ro Khanna. "I will stand up for that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House."

"The people do not want more of our taxpayer dollars going to endless war and the killing of civilians," added Missouri's Cori Bush. "Stop the bombing and do better by us."

Even some Republicans added their voice of disapproval.

"I am potentially fine with striking Yemen to defend critical shipping channel & response to aggression, but why is Congress not making calls to strike a foreign country with pre-meditation? Under what authority was this carried out?" asked Rep Chip Roy of Texas.

US presidents, from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, have often carried out strikes without first seeking congressional approval.

After Mr Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian spymaster Qasem Soleimani, Mr Biden argued that presidents "should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people".

But under the Biden administration, the US military has previously launched strikes in Syria and Iraq without going to Congress.

Experts say the legal justification lies with the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution passed by Congress in 2001, which the US has used to justify various troop deployments and counter-terrorism operations around the world over the past two decades.

Even without the AUMF resolution in effect, some have argued another piece of legislation, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, grants a president broad powers to take military action.

Despite the criticism from some elements of Congress, top Republicans and Democrats have backed Mr Biden's decision.

"I welcome the US and coalition operations against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists responsible for violently disrupting international commerce in the Red Sea and attacking American vessels," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement on Thursday night.

"President Biden's decision to use military force against these Iranian proxies is overdue," the top Republican added.

Ben Cardin, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee, agreed.

"I support President Biden's decision to take precise action against these increasingly dangerous provocations that have threatened the interests of the US and our allies, and welcome our coalition partners taking these actions with us," Mr Cardin said.

Senior administration officials have made clear that an attack on an American commercial vessel, being escorted by US military vessels on Tuesday, was the tipping point for Thursday night's action.

Twenty drones and three missiles were shot down and, had that not happened, officials say the ships could have been sunk, including one that was carrying jet fuel.

The fact that this action was clearly telegraphed in both Washington and London is a clear indication that the US and UK governments, along with the other members of what officials in Washington DC call "a coalition of the willing" wanted to minimise any collateral damage and loss of life; degrading facilities and capabilities was, they say, their aim.

The Pentagon is expected to give further details of the battle damage assessment in the coming hours and days, but one senior administration official said indications were that they had had "good effects".

The concern in Washington has always been the escalation of the Gaza conflict to the wider region, and officials continue to stress that this is their key aim.

But they are also acutely aware of the potential commercial damage to the world economy should shipping continue to come under fire in the route through the Red Sea and the Suez canal.

In his statement on Thursday, Mr Biden said he "will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary".