The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran has raised concerns about the potential involvement of the United States, with President Donald Trump playing a crucial role in determining the country’s stance. Trump’s recent comments have added to the uncertainty, as he hinted at the possibility of US engagement in the conflict while also suggesting that Iran wants to negotiate. Amidst this backdrop, the War Powers Act has come under scrutiny for its potential to limit Trump’s war-making powers.
The War Powers Act, passed in 1973, restricts the president’s power to commit the US to armed conflict without congressional approval. The law requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless authorizations to extend them are passed. Before US troops are committed abroad, Congress must be consulted “in every possible instance”.
According to Article II of the US Constitution, the president is designated “commander in chief” of the armed forces, granting them the power to order the military to respond to attacks and imminent threats. However, their war-making powers are constrained by Congress, which has the authority to declare war. Trump has reportedly told aides he has approved attack plans for Iran but is holding off to see if Iran would give up its nuclear program.
Congress has traditionally authorized a wide range of military resolutions, and there have been only 11 formal declarations of war in US history. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows the president to use military force for specific goals without a formal declaration of war. The 2001 AUMF and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been used to justify attacks on “terrorist groups” in at least 19 countries.
The War Powers Act has been viewed by some critics as ineffective, with presidents finding ways to sidestep its requirements. Modern presidents have used creative legal arguments to work around the law’s requirements, expanding their war-making powers. The executive branch has steadily expanded its war-making powers, particularly after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Experts warn that US involvement in the conflict could lead to a full-scale attack by Iran against US bases in the region, resulting in significant consequences. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, notes that while Tehran may not be able to sustain a long fight with the US, it won’t be an easy war for Washington either. Ryan Crocker, a distinguished chair in diplomacy and security at RAND, observes that US involvement could result in Tehran blocking the Straits of Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure, or attacks on US military and diplomatic targets.
The War Powers Act’s effectiveness in stopping Trump from going to war with Iran remains uncertain. While some lawmakers are pushing for their own version of the law, the Republican-controlled legislature makes passage unlikely. As Trump weighs his options, the international community waits with bated breath, hoping for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. With the balance of power in Congress shifting to the Republicans in Trump’s second term, the newest war powers resolutions face an even stiffer battle.