The situation between the United States and Iran is growing increasingly tense, resembling the biggest military buildup in the Middle East since 2003, before the Iraq invasion.
There’s quite a bit of chatter among lawmakers about the possibility of U.S. action against Iran. However, it seems like there’s no formal authority to declare war here—no public hearings, no discussions, and no oversight.
We’re mostly met with silence from a largely ineffective Republican group, except for Representative Thomas Massie from Kentucky. The Democrats aren’t faring much better either. Yet, one courageous voice calling for action is Democratic Representative Ro Khanna from California. He’s indicated plans to push for a vote on a war powers resolution concerning Iran, which he proposed with Massie for the second half of February. This resolution aims to prevent President Trump from initiating military action against the Iranian regime.
It might already be too late, though. An adviser to Trump remarked that there’s a significant chance—around 90%, they say—of violence in the near future. With domestic issues piling up and the Supreme Court recently shutting down Trump’s tariff policies, the president might feel pressured to project strength abroad, especially towards the Middle East.
Whether or not you think the U.S. should attack Iran, it’s crucial there’s a public debate about it before any military action takes place. Congress has a responsibility as a co-equal branch of government to discuss this before things escalate. Previously, during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration at least engaged in discussions about it, even if, in hindsight, they seem misplaced. While we were heading towards a concerning path that involved unnecessary violence and waste, there was an attempt to uphold the spirit of the Constitution.
Interestingly, since World War II, the U.S. has engaged in various conflicts—Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Syria—without formally declaring war. Congress has handed over significant power to the executive branch regarding military actions. This wasn’t what the framers of the Constitution intended. They worried about an imperial presidency, fearing that decisions on war could be made whimsically, much like a king.
Nowadays, it seems our leaders lack that anti-imperialist spirit. They often appear too attached to party politics, the defense sector, and foreign interests to genuinely support constitutional processes regarding war. The idea that we’re still living in a constitutional republic feels more like a fading dream. Our constitutional principles have been overshadowed, hidden beneath the pressures of a bipartisan approach to military engagement.
This issue isn’t new; it predates Trump and will likely continue beyond his administration. The presence of an “R” next to a president’s name doesn’t automatically grant them leeway to instigate conflicts. Being “Commander in Chief” doesn’t give the president or their advisors the authority to engage our nation in warfare. That power is meant solely for Congress. Hypothetically, if Kamala Harris were in office and looked to strike Russia, I’d bet that many of those currently supporting intervention in Iran would change their tune regarding her approach.
It’s disheartening that partisanship has blinded both Republicans and Democrats from recognizing how much damage is done to the Constitution by presidents who wage war without Congressional consent. If we continue this way, we might find ourselves stuck in an endless loop of warfare, draining our resources and spirit as a nation. Our path towards empire will keep picking up speed, failing the vision of our founders, and ultimately, we’ll have to look in the mirror for accountability.
