By Brooke Anderson

 

WASHINGTON, 12 March. - (ANA) - US President Donald Trump's swiftly launched war on Iran alongside Israel has raised serious questions about the legality of his actions—both domestically and internationally. 

 

Days into the war, political leaders, regional experts, NGOs and members of the public are decrying what they see as overreach of executive power and asking about what this means for the future of rule of law and diplomacy.

 

"The joint Israel-US decision to start a war against Iran is a gross misuse of presidential power. Trump is sidestepping the War Powers Resolution," Ed Abington, formerly the number two intelligence officer at the State Department in the late 1990s under then-President Bill Clinton, told The New Arab.

 

He was referring to a federal law passed in 1973 in response to the US entry into the Vietnam War, requiring congressional consent for war as a check on presidential power. 

 

"I think not enough attention is being focused on the long-term implications of this war," he said. 

 

Some lawmakers have taken steps to stop Trump's war on Iran with a War Powers Resolution that would require the US to end operations in Iran within thirty days unless given authorisation by Congress. However, with a Republican-majority Congress, the measure is unlikely to move forward. 

 

"We must reject this illegal and unjust war in Iran," Representative Ro Khanna of California, a co-sponsor of the resolution, said in a public statement in the wake of the US-Israeli military strikes on Iran.

 

"We have lost our way," he said, comparing Trump's actions to the law of the jungle, where might makes right. 

 

Domestically, the US constitution states that, though the president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, it is Congress that has the power to declare war. 

 

"[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..." according to the Constitution. Having the power to declare war vested in Congress is seen as the framers of the Constitution setting a curb on executive power.

 

An exception to this, which continues to be debated hundreds of years after the creation of the original document, is if there is a sudden attack or invasion, in which case the president has the authority to repel these attacks. 

 

Despite these apparent limitations on the president’s authority to wage war, the US has engaged in multiple wars without congressional approval. 

 

The last time the US officially declared war was during World War II. In September 2001, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, then-President George W. Bush signed the Authorisation for Use of Military Force. It was widely blamed on the left for enabling overreach of force in the subsequent war on terror, most notably the US-led invasion of Iraq.

 

"Iraq kind of started this downward spiral. It was reversed somewhat with [then-President Barack] Obama," said Abington, noting that Obama negotiated the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump torpedoed.

 

Though Trump campaigned on no new wars, he has also been under constant pressure by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Iran. And though this war is seeing high-level opposition, there is no shortage of supporters of the ongoing airstrikes in the Republican-majority House and Senate.

 

 

Senator Lindsay Graham has long been a proponent of action against Iran and has voiced his support for the current war.

 

In addition, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had briefed the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" bipartisan lawmakers on the strikes. This is far from what many believe was envisioned by the framers of the constitution. 

 

This deviation from international diplomacy could have far-reaching consequences. The US is already seeing long-time partners, such as Canada, planning for a future less aligned with the US.

 

With the midterm elections right months away, likely the most feasible option for ending the war in the near future would be strong public opposition. According to polls, around 56 percent of Americans oppose the war and 74 percent oppose a ground invasion.

 

"There could be popular opposition within the US as a main check on Trump's ability to continue the war," Ohannes Geukjian, associate professor of political studies and conflict resolution, told TNA.

 

David Frank, a professor of communication and rhetoric at the University of Oregon, told TNA that he is already seeing a growing anti-war movement, something he says was instrumental in ending the war in Vietnam over 50 years ago. 

 

"Congress was forced by the people to end funding for the Vietnam War," he said. "Legal arguments mean nothing unless they're in the social movements."   - (ANA) -

 

AB/ANA/12 March 2026 - - -