Decades of Congressional Inaction Contributed to Illegal US-Israeli War on Iran

The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, billed by the Trump administration as a “military operation,” has now evolved into a sustained confrontation with no clear exit strategy, no authorization from Congress, and no public transparency. The United States finds itself at a precarious juncture in a conflict of its own choosing. While high-level representatives from both countries met last month in Pakistan for ceasefire-linked negotiations, diplomatic efforts have not resulted in slowing a conflict that has increased regional instability.

The war remains unpopular both domestically and among U.S. allies, even as the Trump administration continues to try to rationalize entering a war of aggression. Reporting and political pressure have begun to focus on how and when this war will end, but the matter of whether the constitutional framework governing war will be meaningfully upheld is still a fundamental question that needs to be addressed.

At the heart of this debate remains the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War. The statute requires the president to notify Congress before initiating military action or deploying troops in response to “imminent” threats. The War Powers Resolution requires the withdrawal of the troops within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes the action. None of these requirements have been honored or followed under the Trump administration.

Donald Trump launched the U.S.-Israel war of choice in late February and formally notified Congress, beginning a countdown to receive authorization for use of military force. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently told Congress that the ceasefire with Iran does not count toward the 60-day requirement under the War Powers Resolution. He argued that the clock can be reset or paused depending on the status of hostilities. The conflict has now surpassed the 60-day threshold, yet the Trump administration has not demonstrated any concrete plans to seek approval from Congress. In fact, the administration has doubled down in defending its war crimes by arguing that the War Powers Resolution is itself unconstitutional and has not been followed by any previous administrations. During a recent White House briefing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed that position, stating that the administration was only complying with certain elements of the law to remain in good standing with Congress.

Despite ongoing ceasefire negotiations, both Washington and Tehran remain divided on conditions of ending the war. Iran has demanded the U.S. and Israel immediately end hostilities on its soil while lifting sanctions, releasing frozen assets, and recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium and new security arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz. The country has also called for removal of U.S. military pressure around Iran, and demanded that Israel stop attacking Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has insisted that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz before any broader settlement can proceed. The de facto blockade of the Strait, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas exports pass, was instituted following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, intensifying fears of global economic instability.

While both countries go back and forth on the terms of a ceasefire agreement, this war has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,375 Iranians with over 26,000 more people injured. Additionally, Israel’s ongoing attacks in Lebanon have killed more than 2,500 people while leaving 7,000 people injured. Official casualties of U.S. service members stand at 13, though there is widespread suspicion that the figure is far higher.

The call to invoke the War Powers Resolution following Israel’s 12-day war on Iran in June 2025, introduced by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, is not just an abstract procedural concern. It is one of the only mechanisms left to force accountability and transparency and to assert democratic control. However, with both the House and Senate under the control of Republican lawmakers, passage of this legislation remains unlikely. The resolution has already failed to pass the House, and unless the makeup of Congress changes in the midterms, or U.S. voters find some other way to pressure the Trump administration, it appears dead on arrival. This is not just a political abdication, but a constitutional one.

While a number of Democratic lawmakers have voiced their concerns about Trump’s war, one member in particular has been consistently and notably pressing for accountability, enforcement of the War Powers Resolution, and Hegseth’s impeachment: freshman Congressmember Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, an Iranian American. Her steadfast antiwar stance has drawn sharp criticism from a variety of factions, including what she describes as disproportionate personal attacks from some in the pro-war Iranian diaspora, whom she says have used propaganda while attempting to undermine her reputation as a sitting member of Congress.

In a statement published by her congressional office, Ansari stated that these threats against her, her staff, and members of her family have continued to worsen, especially after she introduced the articles of impeachment against Hegseth. In the statement Ansari said, “These attacks aren’t about truth; they’re the product of desperation from those trying to distract from a failing, illegal war, rising costs of living, and an administration with no coherent strategy while Americans pay the price at the pump. And while they spread lies, American service members are being put in harm’s way, with real casualties mounting in a war that lacks both justification and direction.”

Ansari alleges complicity in war crimes as the primary reason for the impeachment of Hegseth, and has joined other Iranian American antiwar political leaders in calling for an end to the war on Iran.

The backlash against Ansari and other antiwar voices reveals the disturbing reality that rather than engaging with the substance of her argument — that unauthorized wars violate both constitutional norms and statutory law — the pro-war movement in the United States (including parts of the Iranian diaspora) have sought to marginalize her position as supposedly extreme and supportive of the current Iranian regime. Ansari’s call for accountability is not a radical idea, but a legal premise fully aligned with the very principle of the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

After years of Trump and his administration violating the Constitution and otherwise breaking international law, threatening on Truth Social to wipe out entire civilizations, and bringing the United States to the brink of social and economic collapse, there is now a growing impeachment movement across the country. What was once a fringe demand has now become a nationwide effort even amongst congressional candidates, who have also openly called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked, and for Trump and Hegseth to be impeached and held accountable for their roles in authorizing illegal military actions.

Just recently, the congressional campaigns of Hartzell Gray in Missouri, Oliver Larkin in Florida, and Rose Penelope Yee in California issued a statement demanding that the House of Representatives begin impeachment proceedings under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. All three candidates are currently facing incumbents in upcoming Democratic primaries. They also called on Vice President JD Vance and Trump’s cabinet to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of the president’s authority when he or she is unable to faithfully uphold the duties of the office. In addition, the coalition is calling on Congress to immediately force a War Powers Resolution in order to assert congressional authority over the ability for the president to engage in acts of war. This statement has garnered support from other progressive candidates, including ones endorsed by Justice Democrats and the Democratic Socialists of America.

To date, congressional opposition to the war with Iran has been limited to public criticism and War Powers Resolution efforts. While important, these approaches have rarely restricted administrations once hostilities are underway. Many Democrats were hesitant to fully confront the administration before the conflict escalated, wary of appearing vulnerable and weak on national security, and angering their donors. Beyond the War Powers Resolution, Congress can more meaningfully constrain the president’s ability to continue the war through the supplemental appropriations process, which gives lawmakers leverage over additional funding for the conflict. Members of the legislative branch must use every available tool to bring this war to an end. The political path forward is clear: With the rise of antiwar candidates challenging the establishment Democrats and the shift in public view over endless wars, the old guard who have demanded strength through war for decades are no longer popular figures, even within their respective parties.

For far too long, Congress has abdicated its role in declaring war. An unauthorized war with Iran did not arrive at our doorstep overnight. Decades of neglect from Congress to curb the president’s military power have led us to this moment, in which a president can unilaterally declare war and Congress seems powerless to stop it — despite having the legal power to do just that. It is in the best interest of Congress to appreciate the War Powers Resolution rather than ignore its importance. It is the legal tool that allows Congress to compel withdrawal, demand justification, and reassert its constitutional role. Congress must invoke the War Powers Resolution — not as a symbolic gesture but as a mandate and a precedent.

Members of Congress must now decide whether they will honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution, or hand all power without accountability to the executive branch, effectively sanctioning an imperial presidency. The stakes are as high as ever, and not only limited to the current war with Iran, but also the future of democratic governance in the United States.