Donald Trump likes to convey the impression of being a strong president who fully exercises the powers granted to him under the US Constitution. As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he is allowed to initiate a military operation but must formally notify Congress within 48 hours. In the case of the Iran war, he did do this on time, on March 2.
But now a second deadline is approaching: A military operation is only permitted to last 60 days without the approval of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the two bodies that make up Congress. That deadline expires on May 1.
If a solution to the war has not been negotiated between Washington and Tehran by then, the president will have to take further steps to legitimize his military operation against Iran.
What is the 'war powers resolution'?
Nearly 240 years ago, the founders of the US divided responsibility for war in the Constitution: The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but only Congress can declare war.
The war powers resolution of 1973 is a federal law that sets out how authority is to be divided between Congress and the president during wartime.
"It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its 'collective judgement' to send troops into 'hostilities'," The Associated Press explains. "The war powers resolution calls for the president 'in every possible instance' to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces'."The resolution is widely seen as a lesson from the VietnamWar, a conflict the US had been fighting since 1955 but which Congress did not formally authorize until 1964. But when it was enacted in 1973, then-President Richard Nixon was not in favor of it. His veto was overridden by a two-thirds majority in Congress though, and the law took effect.
Only Congress can declare war, but it usually doesn't. The last declaration of war was made by Congress on June 4, 1942, against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, countries allied with Nazi Germany during World War II. Instead, many past presidents have simply used the resolution's vague wording to authorize the use of military force abroad.
The war powers resolution supposedly preserves Congress' role in modern conflicts without formal declarations of war, while maintaining the president's flexibility in sensitive situations.
30-day extension possible
In accordance with the law, the president could extend the original 60-day period once, by an additional 30 days — particularly to allow for an orderly withdrawal of troops.
Stormy-Annika Mildner, head of the Aspen Institute Germany think tank, considers this the most likely scenario. "I assume that Trump will make use of the additional 30-day period, arguing that there's been progress made, that a ceasefire is in place and that an end to the war is in sight, meaning the extra time is needed to complete the process," Mildner told DW.
That argument would be weakened, however, if the situation in the Strait of Hormuz continues to escalate and the ceasefire is severely and persistently violated. "If the conflict escalates further now, then invoking or justifying these 30 days becomes even more controversial than it already is," Mildner said.
The New York Times points to another possibility: Trump could argue that the 60-day rule does not apply in this specific case. His predecessor, Barack Obama, made a similar argument in 2011 regarding UN-approved airstrikes in Libya. Obama said at the time that the military operation did not involve sustained combat, especially not with ground troops.
Five resolutions, five rejections
As a rule, presidents have sought public support and, in particular, congressional approval before major military actions — for example, George W. Bush did so before invading Iraq in 2003. Trump's decision not to do so in the case of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran has created a vulnerability that opposition Democrats in Congress have repeatedly exploited.
Since early March, there have been a total of five votes in both chambers on resolutions intended to constrain Trump's actions. Given the Republican majorities in both chambers, the resolutions failed, although in some cases only narrowly.
"Beyond passing resolutions, Congress has only limited means to actively end the war,"
— said Mildner. "An effective tool would be to cut off funding. Politically, however, that is hardly feasible."
The US military is deeply embedded in society, and cutting off funding to troops would likely meet little understanding.
Waiting for the midterms
However, the five votes so far do not necessarily mean a sixth — after the 60-day deadline — would end the same way. According to The New York Times, several Republicans have already indicated they may reconsider how they vote. John Curtis, a Republican senator from Utah, made his position clear with the opening line of his essay on April 1:
"I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval."
Mildner, however, considers it "not particularly likely" that such approval will be forthcoming.
"For many Republicans, it is politically much easier to vote against resolutions to end the war than to actively authorize its continuation. The latter entails clear co-responsibility for the duration, costs and risks of the operation — and therefore considerable political vulnerability, especially with an eye on the midterms," she said.
The midterm elections will be held on November 3, and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 Senate seats will be contested. Midterms have often served as an opportunity to punish a sitting president. This year, opinion polls suggest Trump's Republicans could lose their majority in both chambers.
US political consultant Jonathan Katz of the Brookings Institution think tank told DW that candidates, especially in states and districts where close races are expected, are watching the polls very closely.
"That said, voting against Trump's military action is a risky move politically with midterm elections approaching," he said. "Republican members of Congress will be looking for cover rather than confrontation with a president who has a history of targeting Republicans in Congress who are not considered loyal."
One reason for the president's poor approval ratings is the high cost of living, further exacerbated by steep increases in fuel prices as a result of the Iran war. Even within Trump's typically unified MAGA base, there has been loud criticism of the war. The pressure on the president is therefore enormous to find a face-saving solution before the midterms — regardless of how Congress is ultimately involved.
This article was originally written in German.
More and more US military members don't want to go to war
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
