Donald Trump warns of more Iran strikes as Democrats move to end war

• Trump warns of further strikes against Iran but announces no new military orders or timeline

• Democrats plan to challenge the war through resolutions, hearings and scrutiny of its costs and objectives

• Gulf tensions threaten oil supplies and energy security, particularly for India, China and Japan

US President Donald Trump has warned that Washington could launch further military action against Iran, raising the prospect of an escalation in the Gulf conflict even as senior Democrats in Congress prepare a legislative push to end the war and challenge the administration over its military objectives, financial costs and lack of a clear exit strategy.

Speaking to reporters during an Oval Office event on Thursday, Trump suggested that the United States could intensify its campaign against Iran, although he stopped short of announcing any new military orders or identifying potential targets.

“I would rather not destroy the rest of the country, if possible, but maybe I'll have to. You'll know soon enough,” Trump said.

His remarks offered little clarity about the possible scale or timing of further military action. The president did not provide a timetable, specify which Iranian targets could be considered or explain what circumstances would prompt another round of strikes.

Trump defended the ongoing military campaign and reiterated that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons remained a central objective of US policy.

Addressing reports about possible proposals concerning Tehran's nuclear programme, he said: “They're not doing anything without our approval.”

However, he did not confirm the details of any proposal, disclose whether negotiations were underway or outline a mutually agreed diplomatic framework. His comments therefore left the prospects for a negotiated settlement and the possibility of further military escalation uncertain.

Trump's latest warning comes as senior House Democrats are preparing to use congressional oversight and legislative procedures to challenge the administration's handling of the conflict.

Representative Gregory Meeks, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has pledged to introduce resolutions seeking to terminate the war and restore Congress's constitutional authority over decisions involving military action.

In a 4 November letter to colleagues seeking their support to become chairman of the committee, Meeks outlined his proposed foreign-policy agenda for the next Congress.

“On the legislative front, I intend to bring resolutions to the floor to immediately terminate the President’s war with Iran and will prioritize clawing back Congress’s proper role in the making of American foreign policy,” he wrote.

Meeks also proposed compelling senior administration officials to testify publicly about the Iran conflict, US policy towards Venezuela and broader disputes over the constitutional division of powers between Congress and the presidency.

His proposed agenda reflects growing Democratic opposition to the administration's military decisions and its approach to congressional authorisation.

However, the letter represents a statement of legislative intentions rather than an announcement of an already scheduled vote. Meeks did not provide a date for introducing or voting on the proposed resolutions.

House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark has also signalled that Democrats intend to intensify scrutiny of the administration's Iran policy, particularly its objectives, continued military funding and plans for bringing American troops home safely.

Speaking to CNN earlier on Thursday, Clark criticised the president for committing the United States to a conflict without clearly explaining how it would end.

She described the campaign as “a reckless war that had no exit strategy, had no clear goals”.

Clark argued that the administration must explain what it hopes to achieve militarily, how long American forces are expected to remain involved and what steps are being taken to prevent further risks to US personnel.

She also raised concerns about the economic consequences of the conflict, particularly mounting pressure on household fuel costs.

According to Clark, Democrats will seek discussions with the administration about the war's objectives, its financial implications and a strategy for ending the conflict while protecting American citizens and military personnel.

Her comments were circulated by her office before Trump's latest remarks at the White House. They therefore represented the Democrats' previously outlined position rather than a direct response to the president's Thursday afternoon warning.

The positions outlined by Meeks and Clark point to two complementary approaches within the Democratic opposition.

Meeks is focusing on congressional authority, legislative resolutions and public testimony from senior administration officials. Clark, meanwhile, is emphasising the practical and financial consequences of the conflict, including military funding, the safety of US troops and the absence of a clearly defined exit strategy.

Together, their proposals signal an effort to make the Iran war a central issue of congressional scrutiny in the next legislative session.

Nevertheless, neither Democrat announced a new legal restriction on Trump's military authority. Their proposed resolutions and oversight initiatives would require further congressional action before producing any binding change in US policy.

The continuing conflict also has implications far beyond Washington and Tehran, particularly for major Asian economies that depend heavily on energy shipments from the Gulf.

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world's most strategically important oil transportation routes. The International Energy Agency identifies the waterway as a critical energy transit corridor, with India, China and Japan among the principal destinations for oil transported through it.

Any prolonged disruption or escalation affecting shipping through the strait could have significant consequences for international energy markets, crude oil prices and the import bills of major Asian economies.

For India, which relies substantially on imported crude oil to meet domestic demand, developments in the Gulf carry particular economic significance. Higher international oil prices could increase pressure on fuel costs, inflation and the country's overall energy import expenditure.

The uncertainty surrounding Trump's next steps therefore extends beyond the immediate military confrontation. The possibility of additional strikes, the absence of a clearly defined diplomatic framework and the growing political opposition in Washington have created fresh questions about the conflict's duration and wider economic consequences.

With Democrats preparing to challenge the administration through congressional resolutions and oversight, and Trump keeping the possibility of further military action open, the future course of the Iran conflict remains uncertain.

With IANS inputs