America bombs Iran: What does the US Constitution say about war
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787.
On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable.
At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities.
Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.'
Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war?
Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war?
The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives.
The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks.
The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.'
For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times.
(Source: senate.gov)
But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress.
This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action.
In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation.
In practice, it has proven all but toothless.
Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check.
Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent.
President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction.
Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace.
Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk.
A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them.
Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations.
Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement.
Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war?
Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics.
She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks.
She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year.
She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home.
Write to her at aishwaryakhosla.ak@gmail.com or aishwarya.khosla@indianexpress.com. You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Los Angeles Police apologises for ‘offensive and embarrassing' post about US bombings on Iran; Full statement here
Los Angeles Police rushed to remove an odd social media post regarding the Iranian conflict after it was widely condemned as 'offensive' and 'embarrassing.' The tweet has since been deleted, but the LA County Sheriff's Department posted condolences for the 'tragic' US attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday. A demonstrator holds a sign during a protest against war with Iran outside the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Sunday, June 22, 2025. The US carried out airstrikes on three nuclear sites in Iran overnight, directly entering Israel's war with Tehran despite President Donald Trump's longtime promises to avoid new foreign conflicts. Photographer: Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg(Bloomberg) 'Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran. While this tragic event happened overseas, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is closely monitoring the situation alongside our local, state and federal partners,' the post on X read. Social media users slam 'out of touch' post The bizarre post was heavily criticized as 'out of touch'. 'We sincerely hope your account was hacked,' Stop Antisemitism reacted to the post while notifying LA police. 'There were no victims in last night's successful targeting of Iran's nuclear sites.' Another person on X wrote, 'How is this even real??' while a third user blasted the post as 'pathetic.' The tweet comes following protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that started earlier this month in Los Angeles. As thousands hit the streets to oppose the Trump administration's clampdown on illegal immigration across the US, largely peaceful demonstrations quickly descended into violence. Many people asked why police officers in Los Angeles were making comments about global policy and national defense matters. LA County Sheriffs takes down the post, issues apology The police agency swiftly apologised and removed the message from X. 'This post was unacceptable, made in error, and does not reflect the views of Sheriff Robert G. Luna or the Department,' LA County Sheriffs said in a post. According to the department, they have started an internal investigation to find out how it was posted. Also Read: US Embassy in Qatar sends urgent email to American citizens, issues 'shelter in place' warning amid Iran-Israel tension UN calls for emergency session as US launches strikes on Iran President Donald Trump stunned the world on Saturday night by confirming that three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan—were destroyed. On Sunday, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres started the Security Council's emergency session. The facilities were bombed, which Guterres called a 'perilous turn in a region that is already reeling from the outset of the crisis.'
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Step down': Iran's exiled 'crown prince' Reza Pahlavi says he's ready to take over, Khamenei will receive fair trial if he resigns
Iran's exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi called for a regime change. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last shah, urged Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to step down now if he wants to get a fair trial, something that Reza said Khamenei never gave to any Iranian. Reza Pahlavi announced that he was ready to take the regime over and he was setting up a new secure platform for dissidents and internal opponents of the regime to coordinate their efforts to overthrow the disctatorrshio and put the country on the path of a "free and democratic" future. 'We are a proud, ancient and resilient people,' Pahlavi told a press conference in Paris on Monday. 'To my compatriots: This is our moment. I am with you. Let us build this new Iran together.' 'I am here today to submit myself to my compatriots to lead them down this road of peace.' 'This is our Berlin wall moment' Pahlavi said he has spoken with people across Iran and realized that this is Iran's Berlin Wall moment. "But like all moments of great change, it comes fraught with danger. We stand at a crossroads. One road leads to bloodshed and chaos. The other—to a peaceful and democratic transition," he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The destruction of the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow has diminished the regime's domestic nuclear enrichment, he said. "But it does not diminish the regime's intent to acquire and use nuclear weapons. The regime, enraged and emboldened, will be seeking revenge and can acquire nuclear weapons from other rogue regimes like North Korea," he said. Reza Pahlavi offered his plan for transition and national renewal based on three core principles: Iran;s territorial integrity, individual liberties and equality of all citizens, and separation of religion and state. "We have already launched the Iran Prosperity Project (IPP) , a comprehensive plan for the economic reconstruction and social stabilization of our country in three phases. The Emergency Phase of the first 4-6 months, the Establishment Phase of 18-24 months, and the Normalization Phase which is long term," he said. Reza Pahlavi pushes for regime change; US unsure While the exiled crown prince pushed for a regime change in Iran, the US is not certain of what it wants. Vice President JD Vance categorically said the US is not in a war with Iran and is not attempting regime change in Iran. But President Donald Trump contradicted that claim and said if the current regime in Iran is unable to 'Make Iran Great Again', then why there would not be a regime change. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change', but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to Make Iran Great Again, why wouldn't there be a Regime Change? MIGA!!!" Trump posted on Truth Social.
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump joins Iran war: US bombs nuke sites-But did the Ayatollah just win?
AI image for representation only. At 2:00am Tehran time, American B-2 bombers unleashed the most direct attack on Iran since the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979. Three nuclear sites-Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan-were pummeled with over 75 precision-guided munitions and Tomahawk missiles in a campaign US President Donald Trump claimed 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But the impact wasn't only military. It was psychological. It was political. And it was, perhaps, paradoxical. Why it matters Trump's dramatic decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities may have delivered a powerful message to Tehran but also an unintended gift: strengthening Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his regime that was increasingly isolated, domestically unpopular, and weakened by years of internal dissent. Trump's move, aimed at crushing Iran's nuclear ambitions and demonstrating American might, also reshaped the internal dynamics of the Islamic Republic. In the face of foreign aggression, even Iranians who oppose the regime found themselves rallying behind the flag - handing Khamenei a rare nationalist boost at a time of political fragility. A group of prominent Iranian civil society figures - long-time critics of the regime - condemned the attacks, calling them 'detrimental to the human rights and democracy-seeking efforts of Iranian civil society.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Envie de tuer le temps sur l'ordinateur ? Ce jeu de l'an 2025 est un must ! Forge Of Empires Jouer Undo The big picture The US military, led by B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles, struck three major Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordo , Natanz, and Isfahan. These facilities were at the heart of Iran's uranium enrichment program. Trump declared 'monumental damage' to the sites, writing on Truth Social that the deepest damage occurred 'far below ground level. Bullseye!!!' Israel followed up with its own barrage, including strikes on missile sites and suspected command centers in Tehran, Kermanshah, and Bushehr. But satellite imagery and expert assessments tell a more complicated story: while Iran's nuclear infrastructure took a hit, much of its enriched uranium and centrifuges may have been relocated ahead of the attack. The road to Fordo The nuclear facility at Fordo was built deep in a mountain, out of reach of most conventional weapons-except America's 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs. Trump deployed them for the first time in combat, declaring the target a 'bullseye.' Satellite imagery showed gaping craters at the site. But what about what was inside? Iranian officials, including those from the Atomic Energy Organization, claimed their most enriched uranium had already been moved. Intelligence experts can't confirm the extent of underground damage, and some believe Iran's nuclear assets are now more dispersed-and harder to target-than ever. 'This is an incomplete strike,' Jeffrey Lewis, a weapons expert and professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, told AP. 'If this is all there is, here's what's left: the entire stockpile of 60% uranium, which was stored at Isfahan in tunnels that are untouched,' Lewis added. What they're saying 'Mr Trump, the gambler, you may start this war, but we will be the ones to end it,' declared Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari. Trump doubled down on social media: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, told CNN: 'This never would have happened had they had nuclear weapons … They may now sprint toward one.' Zoom in The nationalist reflex Trump triggered is deeply rooted in Iran's modern history. Since the CIA-backed coup in 1953 that toppled a democratically elected government, suspicion of foreign interference - especially from the US - has been a defining theme in Iranian politics. Even during the recent mass protests against the clerical regime, few demonstrators called for Western intervention. That ethos flared again after the strikes. A mural in Tehran was repainted recently: the American flag, with stars replaced by skulls and stripes as falling bombs, towers over a main boulevard. The 'Death to America' slogan remains etched into public spaces. The result: a regime many Iranians despise was suddenly able to posture as the protector of the nation. Between the lines There's a profound irony in the timing. Before the attack, Tehran's regime faced growing unrest. The once-vibrant reform movement had long since faltered. Crackdowns on protests in cities and small towns had turned many Iranians against their rulers. Trust in the ballot box was gone. Ayatollah Khamenei - aging and reportedly nominating his own successors - was presiding over a brittle system. But by launching military strikes on Iranian soil, the US - and Israel - allowed the Islamic Republic to reclaim a narrative it had lost: that of resisting imperial aggression. This sentiment is not just theoretical. In practice, it has meant increased government control, tighter censorship, and the silencing of opposition voices - now easier to justify under the guise of national defense. The intrigue The attack has sparked geopolitical ripple effects far beyond Iran: Russia: Hosting Iranian officials, Moscow warned of 'Pandora's box' being opened by US aggression. The UN: Secretary-General António Guterres feared a 'rathole of retaliation.' Global oil markets: Prices surged to their highest levels since January amid fears of wider conflict. What Trump wanted vs. what he got: Trump aimed to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, deter future threats, and perhaps even force a regime change. He invoked strength, promising peace through overwhelming power. But what he may have achieved Reigniting anti-American fervor inside Iran. Rallying Iranians around a regime they otherwise loathed. Escalating a conflict that could outlast his presidency - and potentially ensnare the US in another Middle East quagmire. Vice President JD Vance tried to reassure Americans that the US does not seek regime change. But Trump undercut that message himself, posting: 'Why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' What's next Iran's next steps could define the region's future - and Trump's legacy. The regime's military options: Missile retaliation: Already underway with strikes on Tel Aviv and threats against US bases. Strait of Hormuz closure: I ran could throttle one-fifth of the world's oil supply, sparking a global crisis. Proxy attacks: From Lebanon to Yemen, Iran's network of allies could be activated, though many have been degraded by Israel's recent offensives. But there's another, quieter possibility: a dash to the bomb. Experts fear that humiliation on the global stage may convince Iranian leaders that only a nuclear deterrent can ensure their survival. Darya Dolzikova, a nonproliferation expert at the Royal United Services Institute, warned that Iran may have 'already moved' critical nuclear materials to unknown sites. The IAEA has yet to inspect the bombed facilities to confirm the extent of the damage. The bottom line Trump's strikes may have damaged centrifuges, but they didn't decapitate the Iranian regime. Instead, they may have reinvigorated it - uniting a fractured society against a common foreign enemy and setting the stage for a prolonged and dangerous confrontation.
