Lawmakers on Wednesday emerged from closed-door Capitol Hill briefings by leading military and intelligence officials breaking down along largely partisan lines on the justification for President Trump’s decision to order the fatal airstrike last week that killed the commander of a key Iranian military force.

Most Republican members of the House and Senate insisted that the briefing, led by Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and CIA Director Gina Haspel, solidified the administration’s argument that the move stemmed from a legitimate, imminent threat to the U.S. or its interests. Democrats, meanwhile, appeared more convinced that the actions described by the top level officials were conducted outside of the president’s authorities as commander-in-chief.

One notable dissenter: Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican and constitutional scholar, who excoriated the briefing as “lame” and “inadequate” and said he was ready to support legislation curbing Mr. Trump’s war-fighting authority.

The two parties have been butting heads over the justification for the strike — which took place in Iraq — since it was carried out last Friday.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the president may take appropriate steps to respond to an imminent threat to the country. Republicans have insisted that the threat posed by Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, who was the main target of the strike, justified President Trump’s action.

However, because Soleimani was a high-level political and military figure in Iran’s government, Democrats have reiterated that the move was an act of war — and only Congress has the authority to declare war.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman James E. Risch, Idaho Republican, said after the Senate briefing that it was “absolutely crystal clear” to him that the threat was clear and imminent.

“It would have been negligent, it would have been reckless, and it would have been an intentional disregard the safety of Americans for the president not to act and not to take out Soleimani,” he said.

Rep. Chris Stewart, Utah Republican and member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told reporters that his committee and the intelligence community had been monitoring a potential attack on an unspecified embassy, which Mr. Stewart said would have been “inevitable, as [Iran has] accelerated and they’ve expanded their aggressive behavior.”

But Rep. Gerry Connolly, Virginia Democrat and member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, described the briefing as “sophomoric profoundly unconvincing.”

“No case was made for imminence,” he added.

Mr. Esper and Mr. Pompeo were expected to make brief remarks to the press following the two briefings but both departed Capitol Hill without speaking to reporters.

As he returned to the Pentagon, Mr. Esper said that “both briefings went long, longer than expected, but it was a very good discussion.”

Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, was hesitant to call the threat posed by Soleimani “imminent” but explained that the briefing was “helpful on intelligence and operations and where we go from here.”

“I’m persuaded that we had strong intelligence that meant we had to take action,” he told The Times.

Quickly following the House briefing, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi confirmed the House will vote on a resolution on Thursday that could effectively clip the president’s war authority. The resolution is expected to restrict any future military action in Iran ordered by the White House within 30 days unless it is approved by Congress, but is unlikely to survive an expected presidential veto.

Mr. Lee seemed particularly exercised by the administration’s case and what he said was a failure to consult with Congress.

It was “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate,” Mr. Lee told reporters. “It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government … to come in and tell us that we can’t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It’s un-American, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s wrong.”

Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.