The war in Iran wanted by the Trump administration enters a crucial phase. The countdown provided by the American war powers law is about to expire, but the ending is far from certain.
Because May 1st is a fundamental date
As CNN reconstructs, the crux is the “War Powers Resolution”, the law passed after Vietnam which limits the president’s powers in the use of military force without authorization from Congress. The mechanism is clear on paper: within 48 hours the president must notify the intervention, within 60 days Congress must authorize it, otherwise the operations must be interrupted. There is also an additional 30 day window to allow for safe withdrawal.
In the case of Iran, the White House complied with the first formal step, but did not ask for any parliamentary authorization. And now time is running out: according to the most widespread interpretation, the 60-day limit falls on May 1st.
The battle over the ceasefire (and the norm)
However, not everyone agrees on the deadline. Some jurists maintain that the bill starts from the beginning of hostilities (anticipating the deadline to April 29), others from the official notification to Congress. Complicating everything is the ceasefire: several Republicans believe that the pause in fighting will “freeze” the count.
“You can’t punish ceasefires. We want the parties to sit down and negotiate,” Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick told CNN.
It’s the most realistic scenario. The War Powers Resolution, CNN notes, has never been used to stop a war. Several presidents – from Richard Nixon to Donald Trump – have challenged its constitutionality, arguing that it excessively limits the powers of the executive branch.
Vice President J.D. Vance also dismissed the law as “fundamentally sham and unconstitutional,” arguing that it will not change the conduct of American foreign policy.
In this context, Trump could simply continue operations, ignoring the 60-day limit or arguing that the rule does not apply.
The semantic redefinition of the concept of “war”
Another way is to reinterpret the concept of “hostility”. It has already happened: in 2011 Barack Obama justified the extension of the intervention in Libya by claiming that the use of drones and the prevailing role of NATO allies did not constitute direct exposure to combat.
According to CNN, the Trump administration could use the same argument, or claim that the ceasefire stopped hostilities, restarting the count.
A historical precedent comes from the 1980s. Ronald Reagan avoided an institutional clash over the Marine presence in Lebanon by negotiating a time-limited authorization with Congress.
Today, however, the White House has made no public effort to build consensus on Capitol Hill, making this scenario less likely.
Because it could be the accounts (rather than the law) that influence the war
The result is a paradox: a law created to limit wars “without a mandate” which, in fact, has always left ample margin to presidents. Furthermore, the courts have avoided intervening on its constitutionality.
This is why the passage of the 60 days risks being more of a political moment than a legal one. A test of the strength of relations between the White House and Congress, rather than a real operational constraint.
The real issue, however, could be that of funds and expenses, which for now are huge. Bill Clinton, in the case of Kosovo, argued that congressional approval was implicit in the approval of the funding. But for the war in Iran, CNN underlines, the Trump administration has not yet clarified the costs or asked for new appropriations.
All this while the high fuel prices and the inflationary spiral of the Hormuz blockade are already starting to take their toll on Americans’ wallets. More than the parliamentary passage, this risks being the real crisis factor for a war which the majority of public opinion (including republicans) continues to see as lacking convincing justifications.