Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) published a curious post on his X account Tuesday morning. The nonconformist Republican congressman shared an article written by a native Iranian and Middle East expert who predicts that Israel and Iran will come to blows again — soon.

“Israel is likely to launch another war with Iran before December — perhaps even as early as late August,” reads the bold first line of an article in Foreign Policy, written by Trita Parsi. The author suggests the next battle between these two Middle East rivals will be much bloodier.

Massie, whose political instincts have repeatedly proven accurate, seems to have posted the article as part of an attempt to pre-emptively generate public resistance to U.S. intervention should Parsi’s prediction prove true and Israel seeks to once again draw the United States into their fight.

Massie was the most vocal Republican to oppose the strikes President Donald Trump authorized in June against Iran’s nuclear sites. He called the bombings “unconstitutional” because the president did not obtain congressional approval before authorizing them. Massie’s assessment was shared by a number of legal experts, including Jonathan Turley and Judge Andrew Napolitano, as well as by libertarian icon and former Congressman Ron Paul.

Parsi argues that Israel achieved only a partial victory in June. Israel’s goals included drawing the United States into the conflict, “decapitating” Iran’s theocratic regime, and weakening the Persian nation so badly that Israel can muscle it around in the future without help from the United States. Parsi suggests that if Trump had not strong-armed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into accepting a ceasefire, the war would’ve continued.

The first two aims are undeniably true. Netanyahu worked overtime to convince Trump that only the U.S. bunker-busting bombs could finish the job of destroying Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities. Netanyahu also convinced Trump that Israeli intelligence was correct in assessing that Iran was close to building nuclear weapons. This contradicted U.S. intel, which Trump publicly disparaged when confronted about the issue by reporters. And not long after Israel launched its dominant bombardment on Iran, Netanyahu recorded a video in which he not-so-subtly encourages the “proud” Iranian people to free themselves of their theocratic rulers.

But as for Israel seeking to turn Iran into a Syria or Lebanon so it can bomb them “with impunity,” as Parsi claims, that’s the debatable view of a pro-Iran, anti-Israel activist. Advocates would argue that Israel wanted regime change and a militarily weakened Iran because it prefers a regional neighbor that no longer threatens its existence.

Nevertheless, Parsi suggests, it is because Israel failed to effect regime change and destroy Iran’s military capability that makes “a new Israeli offensive likely.” 

Parsi, who is the founder and president of the National Iranian American Council, writes that Israel’s attempt at regime change only strengthened Iranians’ nationalistic resolve:

Contrary to Israel’s expectations, the killing of senior commanders from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps did not lead to mass protests or an uprising against the Islamic Republic. Instead, Iranians of all political stripes rallied around the flag, if not the regime itself, as a wave of nationalism surged across the country. Israel could not capitalize on the Iranian regime’s broader unpopularity. Indeed, instead of mobilizing the population against the regime, Israel managed to give a new lease on life to the Islamic Republic’s narrative. Rather than condemning the regime for investing in a nuclear program, missiles, and a network of allied nonstate actors, many Iranians are now angry that these elements of Iran’s deterrence proved insufficient.

Parsi also suggests that Israel’s military dominance in June was, in part, the result of “substantial U.S. assistance,” which, he added, included “the use of 25 percent of the United States’ THAAD missile interceptors in just 12 days.” Without this aide, “Israel might have been unable to continue the war.”

An analysis by Yoni Ben Menachem for the Israel-based think tank Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs suggests that Israeli officials still consider Iran a significant military threat. Ben Menachem wrote in a July 29 analysis titled “Israel and Iran Prepare for a New Round of Fighting” that tensions between the two countries have not eased since the “Twelve Day War” ended. He says that Iran is rebuilding its military might. “Senior Israeli defense officials report that Iran is in advanced talks to procure air defense systems and fighter jets from China in preparation for the next round of fighting with Israel,” Ben Menachem wrote, adding, “Iran is planning a preemptive surprise strike on Israel as retaliation for the Israeli surprise attack carried out on June 13.” Ben Menachem quotes high-ranking Israeli defense officers, bolstering the argument that both sides are preparing for another war:

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir stated on July 20 that the latest confrontation with Iran was merely one phase in a prolonged campaign. According to him, “We are now entering a new chapter based on the achievements of the operation — we disrupted Iran’s nuclear and missile programs — and we must remain vigilant.” Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed Zamir’s remarks, warning on July 22 that there is a high likelihood of renewed fighting. During a strategic assessment with senior IDF officials, a decision was made to formulate a strategic plan to prevent Iran from restarting its nuclear program.

Iranian officials have made clear they have no intention of halting nuclear enrichment. Trump, for his part, has said that if Iran resumed nuclear enrichment, the U.S. will strike again.

Another war between Israel and Iran is the subject of the lead article in the latest print edition of The New American. We explore at length how the United States should react if Israel seeks again to draw America into another Middle East operation:

Congress has the exclusive power to fund the military, and is also empowered to regulate the use of military forces. It is responsible for calling up state militias in the service of the military. And, perhaps most importantly, Congress, and not the president, is vested with the authority to declare war. 

But what about limited wars? Many have argued that America’s attack on Iran didn’t constitute an outright war. We address that too:

But in keeping with the obvious spirit and letter of Article I, Section 8, even limited wars required congressional authorization, with the only rational exception being a full-blown national emergency for which Congress had no time to deliberate or act. In this way, the presumption is always in favor of congressional authority and oversight, with the executive branch always operating at the behest of the people’s branch of government. Bona fide exceptions to this formula would be exceedingly rare.

We then not the ideal approach to these matters:

While President Trump campaigned on an anti-war platform, the Iran operation is his second attack on a foreign country (the first was the April 2017 missile strike against Assad’s Syria). We hope that Operation Midnight Hammer will be a one-off, and that America will abandon its interventionist policies, fully repudiate globalism, and restore the constitutional balance of power, with Congress and not the president as the supreme authority over war and peace.