Legal Boundaries and the Role of Congress in Military Decision-Making
Under the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, military power is divided between two branches: the President, as Commander in Chief, directs field operations, while the power to "declare war" and control appropriations rests exclusively with Congress [1]. Under this legal framework, the President is required to report to Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities and has only 60 days to keep forces engaged without formal authorization or a declaration of war. However, American political history demonstrates that this balance has not always been maintained. From Truman's "police action" in the Korean War to Obama's military intervention in Libya, presidents have repeatedly circumvented congressional oversight by employing flexible legal interpretations and utilizing loopholes, such as covert operations [2]. For a more detailed understanding of these laws, their full scope, and a historical analysis of how presidents have adhered to or violated them, you can refer to AGAHIran other article ("War Powers in the United States: The Division of Power Between Congress and the President").
The US-Israel-Iran War and the Expiration of the 60-Day Deadline
More than two months have passed since the US and Israeli strikes on Iran began on March 2, 2026, and the fundamental question now is whether Congress will intervene to end this war. Despite widespread speculation in political circles, current trends suggest a different outlook.
According to the War Powers Resolution timeline, the 60-day deadline for military operations expired on May 1, 2026. Many eyes were fixed on how Congress would react. Yet, days have passed since this deadline with relative silence from lawmakers. Meanwhile, preemptive statements by Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson suggest that the White House considers the 60-day limit moot, claiming the war is "terminated" or paused.
Reports indicate the administration argues that even if hostilities resume, the 60-day countdown must start from zero, as any new engagement would be considered an independent military action [3]. Mike Johnson has also explicitly stated that "the United States is not currently at war with Iran" and that current actions are merely defensive measures to protect American assets [4]. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth shares this view, asserting that the requirements of the 1973 resolution have been met since the bulk of engaged forces have been withdrawn from direct confrontation [5].
Has the Military Confrontation Truly Ended?
The White House's claim that the war has ended or paused is far from self-evident, both legally and on the ground. The confrontation was halted on April 9, 2026, following the announcement of a ceasefire. However, setting aside the fragility of this agreement, two critical issues must be addressed:
1- A ceasefire does not equal the end of a war: Under international law, a "cessation of hostilities" merely signifies a temporary suspension of physical combat and by no means constitutes the legal end of a "hostility" or armed conflict. A ceasefire is not the equivalent of a declaration of war or a peace treaty, nor does it necessarily mean that military forces are out of harm's way [6]. Furthermore, the recent agreement was initially a temporary ten-day ceasefire [7], which President Trump later extended indefinitely [3]. Imposing such a timeframe—even an indefinite one—reveals the temporary and inconclusive nature of the current situation.
2- Continuation of hostilities through a military blockade: While the cessation of direct weapons fire might make the situation appear calm, structural military pressures remain firmly in place. The Strait of Hormuz is still engulfed in tension, and commercial traffic is far from normal [7]. Simultaneously, US forces maintain a military presence and continue to exert pressure in parts of this waterway. According to Article 3(c) of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, "the blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State" is expressly defined as an "act of aggression," which is tantamount to a state of war [8]. Moreover, under Section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, as long as US forces remain in hostile territories and in situations where "imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances," the 60-day statutory clock must not be paused [1]. Therefore, the continuation of this blockade legally translates to the continuation of hostilities.
Legal Loopholes and Obstacles Facing Congress
Even assuming the aforementioned arguments invalidate the White House's claims and do not provide sufficient grounds to bypass the 60-day deadline, numerous avenues still exist to circumvent the law.
Even if the Trump administration's initial goal was to secure a swift and decisive victory—a scenario similar to the 1989 invasion of Panama or the recent surprise operation to capture Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela (January 2026), both of which concluded before the statutory deadline and effectively denied Congress the opportunity to react [9]—now that the war has become a war of attrition, the White House can resort to alternative legal justifications.
For instance, the administration could mirror Obama's approach during the 2011 Libya intervention by stepping back from direct troop engagement. By outsourcing the battlefield to an allied force (like Israel) and limiting the US role to logistical and intelligence support, the administration could argue that direct "hostilities" by Washington have ceased. However, Washington's efforts to forge an international coalition for this purpose have so far faced challenges; Trump's request for NATO participation in securing the Strait of Hormuz met with outright refusal from allies such as Germany and Spain [10].
Another avenue is invoking the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Although this law was drafted exclusively to combat Al-Qaeda and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks—making its application against a nation-state like Iran legally irrelevant and baseless—administrations frequently attempt to bypass Congress by designating various groups as "terrorist threats" [2]. Despite facing fierce legal disputes, these interpretations have practically always served as effective loopholes to evade accountability.
On the other hand, even if Congress manages to pass a resolution to end the war, a repeat of the 2019 Yemen war scenario is highly likely. At that time, Trump vetoed a troop withdrawal resolution, and Congress failed to secure the two-thirds majority required to override the veto [5]. Given the current composition of the House of Representatives and its leadership's alignment with the White House, achieving such a majority against Trump's decisions seems highly improbable.
Final Conclusion
With several days having passed since the May 1 deadline and Congress remaining silent, speculations about exerting serious pressure on the administration to end the war do not align with political realities. An examination of the current situation indicates that congressional leadership has thus far taken no concrete operational steps to initiate a binding resolution [4]. Even if pressure mounts and a resolution is issued, historical experiences, claims of a "war termination," and formidable structural barriers like the presidential veto suggest that it is highly unlikely Congress will be able to mount a substantial roadblock against the White House's resolve to advance this confrontation.
References:
[1] War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548.
[2] Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40 (2001) & Historical Interpretations.
[3] Politico: Trump tells Congress the war with Iran is 'terminated' (May 2026).
[4] NBC News: House Speaker Mike Johnson says US not 'at war' with Iran (May 2026).
[5] Reuters: White House claims Iran war terminated as War Powers deadline arrives (May 2026).
[6] CNN: Analysis: The legal gray zone of Trump's Iran 'ceasefire' (April 2026).
[7] France 24: Tehran shares new peace proposal; Hormuz Strait remains on edge (May 2026).
[8] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX): Definition of Aggression, Article 3(c) - Blockade of ports or coasts (1974).
[9] Al Jazeera: US operation in Venezuela: Trump bombs Venezuela, US captures Maduro (January 2026).
[10] Al Jazeera: How are NATO allies pushing back against Trump's Iran war demands (April 2026).