{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/60baafd7d3cdd0001b29d9ee/6a287f0e74e72c6295b2522f?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"Lawfare Daily: Congressional Resolutions to End the War in Iran","description":"<p>On today's podcast, Executive Editor Natalie Orpett speaks with Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson about what Congress can do to direct the president to end the war in Iran. Scott's recent article in <em>Lawfare</em>, “<a href=\"https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-congressional-resolutions-mean-for-the-war-in-iran\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">What Congressional Resolutions Mean for the War in Iran</a>,” explained why a likely presidential veto of a War Powers Resolution is not the end of the story. The War Powers Resolution gives Congress other tools—including some procedural tricks—that could have a meaningful influence on ending the war. They talk about Scott's article, why he thinks a concurrent resolution is the best option, and how congressional action may be more than just political messaging—it could have real legal significance.</p>","author_name":"The Lawfare Institute"}