On February 28, US President Donald Trump announced the launch of “major combat operations” in Iran, saying the action was meant to protect Americans by removing what he described as imminent threats from Tehran. The strikes have reportedly targeted senior political and military leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and have contributed to a broader regional escalation, with Iranian projectiles hitting locations in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and elsewhere in West Asia.
The developments have raised two key questions: why the administration is avoiding the term “war,” and whether the military action is legally authorised.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority to formally declare war. That power includes raising and supporting armies and maintaining a navy. If a president seeks an official declaration of war, Congress must pass a resolution or bill by a majority in both the House and Senate, which the president then signs into law.
However, Article II of the Constitution designates the president as Commander-in-Chief, granting authority to direct the armed forces and undertake military operations without a formal declaration of war. This distinction allows presidents to initiate limited or undefined military engagements while stopping short of declaring war.
The United States last formally declared war in 1942, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought declarations against Axis powers following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Since then, conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have proceeded without formal declarations of war. Instead, Congress has passed measures like the 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which provided legal backing for operations after the 9/11 attacks.
The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon’s veto, places limits on unilateral presidential military action. It requires the president to consult Congress before introducing US forces into hostilities whenever possible and to report within 48 hours if troops are deployed. Without congressional authorisation, military operations must generally end within 60 days.
In previous instances, the Trump administration relied on Article II powers to justify military actions without prior congressional approval, arguing that certain operations did not rise to the constitutional threshold of “war.” Critics contend that the scale and duration of the current campaign against Iran are broader than past actions and may require explicit authorisation.
Reports indicate that while some congressional leaders were briefed in advance, the administration has not yet sought formal approval to continue operations. Lawmakers from both parties have called for debate on the legality of the strikes, with some Democrats describing the campaign as unconstitutional absent congressional consent.
Legal experts have noted that while presidents possess inherent authority to respond to immediate threats, that power is typically limited to clear emergencies or direct attacks. If the situation does not meet that standard, continued military action without congressional approval could face legal and political challenges.
In this context, avoiding the term “war” appears significant. A formal declaration would clearly require congressional action. By framing the campaign as military operations under the president’s commander-in-chief authority, the administration may be positioning the strikes within existing executive powers, at least temporarily, pending further congressional involvement.
