- Congress had a constitutional duty to assert war powers after the Soleimani strike, but largely stood silent.
- Since 2001, Congress has authorized military force just twice, allowing for expansive executive interpretations of existing authorizations.
- The absence of clear exit strategies or operational boundaries has left American policy unmoored in the Middle East.
- Senior Republicans avoided direct confrontation over the legality of the Soleimani strike, echoing the Trump administration’s narrative.
- The delay in challenging presidential authority may have eroded Congress’s institutional ability to reclaim control.
In early 2020, after a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, Congress had a constitutional duty—and a narrow window—to assert its war powers. Instead, Republican lawmakers largely stood silent. According to a Congressional Research Service report, only five formal war powers resolutions were introduced in the Senate that year, all met with procedural delays or party-line opposition. This inaction followed a broader pattern: since 2001, Congress has authorized military force just twice while permitting expansive executive interpretations of existing authorizations. Now, with U.S.-Iran tensions simmering and shadow conflicts intensifying across the Middle East, the absence of clear exit strategies or operational boundaries has left American policy dangerously unmoored. The delay in challenging presidential authority, legal scholars warn, may have eroded Congress’s institutional ability to reclaim control when it is most needed.
The Cost of Delayed Oversight
For months after the Soleimani strike, senior Republicans echoed the Trump administration’s narrative of preemptive self-defense, avoiding direct confrontation over the legality of the action. The Administration argued it fell under the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq, despite Iran’s distinct geopolitical role. Only in June 2020 did the Senate pass a bipartisan resolution to limit further military action against Iran—a symbolic move that the House failed to advance and the President promptly vetoed. Legal experts at the BBC noted that such delayed responses undermine Congress’s standing in constitutional war powers disputes. By waiting until hostilities had already escalated, lawmakers forfeited their most potent leverage: the ability to shape the terms of engagement before troops were deployed or red lines crossed. This deference has established a troubling precedent, suggesting that robust executive action can effectively preempt legislative oversight.
Key Players and Missed Milestones
The primary actors in this unfolding constitutional crisis include President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and key Republican senators such as Mitch McConnell, Jim Inhofe, and Todd Young. While Young co-sponsored efforts to reassert congressional authority, McConnell blocked similar measures from reaching the Senate floor. Meanwhile, House Republicans offered no unified counterpressure, allowing the Administration to frame any dissent as disloyalty. Crucially, three pivotal moments passed without legislative action: immediately after the Soleimani strike, during the Iranian missile retaliation at Al Asad airbase, and amid renewed proxy attacks in Iraq and Syria. At each juncture, the White House maintained operational control without seeking new authorization. The absence of clear congressional parameters has led to a de facto policy of perpetual engagement, with U.S. forces conducting over 30 counter-militia strikes in Iraq and Syria between 2020 and 2021, according to Reuters.
Why Executive Overreach Took Root
The erosion of congressional war powers stems from a mix of partisan loyalty, procedural manipulation, and strategic ambiguity. Presidents across administrations have exploited broad AUMFs to justify operations far beyond their original scope. Trump’s use of the 2002 Iraq AUMF to target an Iranian general exemplifies this drift. A 2021 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that 78% of post-9/11 military actions lacked specific congressional approval. Within the GOP, internal discipline discouraged dissent; lawmakers who questioned the Administration risked primary challenges or loss of committee positions. Furthermore, the Pentagon’s incremental deployment of forces—often in advisory or support roles—blurred the line between combat and non-combat missions, enabling operations without formal declarations. As Yale Law professor Oona Hathaway observed, ‘Each small step normalizes the next, until Congress wakes up in a war it never voted to start.’
Who Bears the Consequences?
The consequences of unchecked executive war powers extend beyond constitutional balance. U.S. military personnel face increasing risks in ambiguous missions without clear objectives or timelines. Families of deployed troops, service leaders, and foreign allies all suffer from policy unpredictability. Regionally, Iran has exploited the lack of coherent U.S. strategy to strengthen its proxy networks in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. Domestically, the precedent weakens future congressional influence, regardless of which party holds the White House. If lawmakers cede authority during a Republican administration, Democrats may face similar constraints when confronting future military decisions. The long-term impact could be a permanent shift in war-making power from the legislature to the executive branch—a transformation that undermines democratic accountability and fuels public distrust in foreign policy institutions.
Expert Perspectives
Legal scholars are divided on whether Congress can effectively reclaim its war powers after prolonged inaction. Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law argues that ‘once the President establishes facts on the ground, Congress’s options shrink dramatically.’ In contrast, Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center contends that ‘Congress retains constitutional authority, but it must act boldly and swiftly to reassert it.’ Military leaders, too, are split: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley emphasized operational flexibility, while retired General David Petraeus has called for updated AUMFs to reflect current threats. The debate underscores a deeper tension between national security expediency and democratic oversight.
Looking ahead, the trajectory of U.S.-Iran relations will hinge on whether Congress can overcome partisan inertia to pass a new, narrow AUMF or enforce reporting requirements on covert actions. The Biden administration has signaled openness to revising outdated authorizations, but legislative momentum remains weak. With midterm elections influencing congressional priorities, the window for reform may close again. The central question is no longer just about Iran—it’s whether the United States can restore a functional balance of power before the next crisis renders the debate obsolete.
Source: The New York Times