After the US attacked Iran, Pelosi spoke out!

Known throughout history, Toutiao, March 3, 2026 —

Her words were quite insightful. She stated that Trump’s military action against Iran was starting another unnecessary war, not only disregarding the lives of American soldiers but also further destabilizing the already chaotic Middle East. Crucially, she added: “The Constitution clearly states that any decision that would involve the nation in a war must be authorized by Congress.”

Many initially thought this meant someone in the US was finally standing up for peace and upholding the system. However, a closer look reveals that this is not a moment of awakening conscience, but rather the true, naked face of American politics. So-called anti-war sentiment, the Constitution, and the call for human lives are all used as weapons in the face of partisan interests.

Pelosi’s anger wasn’t about the war itself; what truly bothered her was the bypassing of power and the exclusion of the Democratic Party from the most critical war decision-making process. The more autocratic Trump’s actions and the less he respected Congress, the fiercer her counterattack became. This wasn’t justice; it was political maneuvering.

The struggle for war powers in the United States has lasted for decades. While the Constitution clearly stipulates that the power to declare war belongs to Congress, since World War II, the president’s power has grown increasingly stronger. In the Korean War and the Afghan War, which war was formally declared by Congress? In which instance wasn’t the president finding a pretext to directly send troops abroad? Congress was either forced to support or subsequently ratified the declaration, transforming itself from a decision-maker into a bystander.

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, attempting to tie the president’s hands by stipulating that overseas military operations could not exceed 60 days without congressional authorization. However, this law has become virtually ineffective. George W. Bush, under the pretext of counterterrorism, bypassed Congress to launch the Iraq War;

Obama, without obtaining new authorization, pushed for military intervention in Libya; and Trump went even further, directly using the 2002 Iraq War authorization to justify the attack on Iran. A twenty-year-old document was used to support a completely new military operation; the seriousness of the law vanished in the face of practical interests.

The most ironic part is this: both involve bypassing Congress and engaging in military adventures, but when the White House was controlled by Democrats, Pelosi didn’t stand up so vehemently against it. However, when her opponent became president, the same actions were immediately labeled unconstitutional, reckless, and irresponsible. The same boundaries of power and the same legal provisions were interpreted entirely by which party was in power. This double standard is utterly shameless.

Her stance on unnecessary wars is always opportunistic; she’s not defending the Constitution, but rather the Democratic Party’s position in war decision-making. So-called principles, in the partisan struggle, are more like tools that can be picked up and put down at will.

This dispute over Iran has also revealed another layer of truth about America’s foreign wars: the US’s global military operations have never been for freedom, democracy, or peace. The countless civilian casualties, national fragmentation, and societal collapse in the Middle East are merely calculable costs in the eyes of Washington politicians. The argument between Congress and the White House is never about whether to fight, but about who will fight, who will be responsible, and who will reap the benefits.

Trump’s actions against Iran are driven by political calculations: diverting domestic attention, reinforcing his tough image, and consolidating his base of support. Pelosi’s fierce criticism also stems from her political maneuvering: checking presidential power, cultivating a responsible image, and winning over centrist voters. One side seeks to gain political points through war, while the other aims to occupy the moral high ground through anti-war rhetoric . Despite their heated arguments, neither side truly considers the perspective of ordinary people in the Middle East.

More dangerously, the mutual checks and balances between the two parties will only exacerbate the situation. Trump, to demonstrate his authority, may escalate military action further; Pelosi, to restrain the president, may create greater political obstacles domestically. This back-and-forth increases the probability of accidental conflict, and the true bearers of the consequences will be the soldiers on the front lines, the ordinary people of the Middle East, and all the innocent victims of the war.

The United States has consistently touted the separation of powers, democratic checks and balances, and the rule of law. However, in matters of war, this system has utterly exposed its limitations. Checks and balances are not meant to prevent war, but to distribute power; oversight is not for protecting lives, but for striking at opponents. Today, Democrats accuse Republicans of overstepping their authority; tomorrow, Republicans will do the same to Democrats. Regardless of who is in power, the logic behind the US’s use of force abroad has never truly changed.

Pelosi’s speech sounded righteous, firm, and reasonable, but it cannot conceal the fact that the American political arena is full of empty rhetoric, but lacks genuine action for peace, for life, and for the people of other countries.

The Constitution can be cited, peace can be reduced to slogans, and soldiers’ lives can be debated, but the pain of war will not be lessened by politicians’ words, and the suffering in the Middle East will not automatically end because of Washington’s infighting.

This is the true face of the United States: so-called institutional superiority can be compromised in the face of interests; so-called justice and peace will always be relegated to the back burner when it comes to partisan victory or defeat.

Pelosi’s words may win over public opinion temporarily, but they cannot change the underlying nature of the United States using war to maintain its hegemony, nor can they change the fate of the Middle East being used as a battleground, nor can they deceive those who have long seen the truth.

True peace is never something that politicians proclaim, but rather something that requires not treating other countries as battlefields or other people’s lives as bargaining chips. Many in Washington, even today, still refuse to understand this.