Is The U.S. At War With Iran? Understanding Trump’s Strikes, Congress And War Powers
Share this article:
When President Trump launched attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites without seeking Congress’s approval, critics argued he had effectively declared war—something only Congress may do under the U.S. Constitution. Supporters, however, labelled the strikes a limited action falling short of war. “This is not a war against Iran,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Yet the debate over authority and legality has intensified.
Constitutional Authority: Article I vs Article II
The Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to “declare war” and “raise and support armies” (Article I, Section 8). By contrast, Article II appoints the President as “Commander in Chief” of U.S. forces. Historically, presidents of both parties have cited this role to justify military actions without formal declarations. The 1973 War Powers Resolution sought to curb these unilateral strikes, mandating consultation with Congress for hostilities—but it remains largely unenforced.
Congressional Reaction
Many Democrats—and a handful of Republicans—have criticised the strikes for bypassing legislative consent. Senator Chris Van Hollen called it “a clear violation of our Constitution.” Representative Thomas Massie argued there was no “imminent threat” justifying the action. In response, Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution to require explicit approval before any further military moves. Conversely, Senator Lindsey Graham defended the President’s commander‑in‑chief powers, urging legislators to withhold funding if they disapproved.
Legal and International Law Perspectives
Legal scholars are divided. Yale’s Oona Hathaway deemed the strikes “illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law.” Former State Department attorney Brian Finucane agreed that a congressional mandate was necessary and asserted that a “U.S. armed conflict with Iran” now exists for legal purposes. Iran’s Foreign Minister condemned the action as a “grave and unprecedented violation of international law.”
Historical Context of Presidential Military Action
Since World War II, U.S. leaders have seldom sought formal declarations of war. Conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, and recent anti‑terror campaigns all proceeded under presidential authority or broad AUMF (Authorisation for Use of Military Force) resolutions. The strike that killed Qassem Suleimani in January 2020 similarly lacked congressional sign‑off, provoking calls for limits on executive power.
Iran Vows ‘Devastating Retaliation’ as Tensions Escalate
In the wake of the U.S. strikes, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a stern warning, labelling the attacks on its nuclear facilities as an “illegal act of war” allegedly coordinated with Israel. The IRGC promised a “devastating retaliation beyond the imagination” of its enemies, suggesting that American military bases in the region are now potential targets.
According to the IRGC, Iran has identified the launch points used in the airstrikes and remains prepared for further escalation under its ongoing Operation True Promise III, which includes strikes on Israeli infrastructure. Tehran’s Atomic Energy Organisation asserted that the targeted nuclear sites were peaceful and under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight. With regional tensions nearing a tipping point, Iran has declared its right to respond — both militarily and legally — to what it sees as a clear violation of sovereignty.
Constitutional Authority: Article I vs Article II
The Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to “declare war” and “raise and support armies” (Article I, Section 8). By contrast, Article II appoints the President as “Commander in Chief” of U.S. forces. Historically, presidents of both parties have cited this role to justify military actions without formal declarations. The 1973 War Powers Resolution sought to curb these unilateral strikes, mandating consultation with Congress for hostilities—but it remains largely unenforced.
Congressional Reaction
Many Democrats—and a handful of Republicans—have criticised the strikes for bypassing legislative consent. Senator Chris Van Hollen called it “a clear violation of our Constitution.” Representative Thomas Massie argued there was no “imminent threat” justifying the action. In response, Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution to require explicit approval before any further military moves. Conversely, Senator Lindsey Graham defended the President’s commander‑in‑chief powers, urging legislators to withhold funding if they disapproved.
Legal and International Law Perspectives
Legal scholars are divided. Yale’s Oona Hathaway deemed the strikes “illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law.” Former State Department attorney Brian Finucane agreed that a congressional mandate was necessary and asserted that a “U.S. armed conflict with Iran” now exists for legal purposes. Iran’s Foreign Minister condemned the action as a “grave and unprecedented violation of international law.”
Historical Context of Presidential Military Action
Since World War II, U.S. leaders have seldom sought formal declarations of war. Conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, and recent anti‑terror campaigns all proceeded under presidential authority or broad AUMF (Authorisation for Use of Military Force) resolutions. The strike that killed Qassem Suleimani in January 2020 similarly lacked congressional sign‑off, provoking calls for limits on executive power.
Iran Vows ‘Devastating Retaliation’ as Tensions Escalate
In the wake of the U.S. strikes, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a stern warning, labelling the attacks on its nuclear facilities as an “illegal act of war” allegedly coordinated with Israel. The IRGC promised a “devastating retaliation beyond the imagination” of its enemies, suggesting that American military bases in the region are now potential targets.
According to the IRGC, Iran has identified the launch points used in the airstrikes and remains prepared for further escalation under its ongoing Operation True Promise III, which includes strikes on Israeli infrastructure. Tehran’s Atomic Energy Organisation asserted that the targeted nuclear sites were peaceful and under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight. With regional tensions nearing a tipping point, Iran has declared its right to respond — both militarily and legally — to what it sees as a clear violation of sovereignty.
Next Story