Congress and the War Powers Resolution

The Democrats, or most of them, want to stop the war against the Islamic Republic of Iran right now, while Iran still has possession of its enriched uranium, its ballistic missile factories, and its network of regional proxies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. They are ready to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory. So far, the wars powers resolution has passed in the House, but in the Senate, it is likely to be defeated. However, this resolution has come up three times, and each time it has gained more support. More on this resolution, and its growing support, can be found here: “The US Vote to End the War Shows That Iran’s Pressure Strategy Is Working,” by Amine Ayoub, Algemeiner, June 5, 2026:

The vote was 215-208. Four Republicans crossed the aisle. Cheers erupted in the chamber. For the first time, the US House of Representatives approved a war powers resolution that would halt US military action against Iran, and the people celebrated.

What they did not appear to understand is that if they actually succeeded, they would hand Iran the single outcome it has been pursuing since the conflict began: an exit from the war with its nuclear infrastructure intact.

This conflict has cost the American taxpayer more than $100 billion over three months, and public opposition to the war has grown as gas prices have spiked. Those are real costs, and the political pressure behind the vote is comprehensible. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had tried to prevent the outcome, abruptly shutting down floor action two weeks ago when the resolution was on the verge of passing — but that didn’t work.

The resolution now moves toward a Senate that has already shown its own fractures, and toward a White House that will almost certainly veto it, but the trajectory is clear. Each successive vote has moved closer to the threshold. This was the fourth time the House had tried to curb the war, and each time, the vote tallies had inched higher as political unease swelled.

The premise behind the antiwar position is that the Iran conflict is an optional war, reckless in its origin and costless to abandon. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) called it “a reckless and costly war of choice” that has left the country weaker relative to Iran. That framing has rhetorical appeal. It has almost no strategic content.

The reason the United States went to war in February was not a miscalculation or a personality issue in the White House. It was the accumulated failure of two decades of diplomacy, sanctions, and deterrence to stop Iran from advancing to the threshold of nuclear weapons capability.

The war, whatever its tactical complications and humanitarian costs, is the last instrument available to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran short of a verified, enforceable agreement with enforcement mechanisms. Ending the war before that objective is achieved does not produce peace. It produces the precise outcome that made war seem necessary in the first place: an Iran emboldened by American retreat, enriching uranium behind the political cover of a terminated conflict….

It is true that the war powers resolution is unlikely to pass in the Senate, but the next time it comes up, it may pass in both the House and the Senate. Yes, Trump can veto it, but that is not the point. If the popular will, as expressed in votes in Congress, is overwhelmingly against continuing the war in Iran, even if he vetoes the bill, Trump will be under great and increasing pressure to stop the war. He seems to be bowing to that pressure already, in his overpowering desire to make some deal with the Islamic Republic that he can trumpet as a tremendous victory for peace. And that, for those who know full well how malignant and dangerous the Islamic Republic remains, with both its store of ballistic missiles and its 440 pounds of uranium enriched to a level of 60%, just below weapons-grade, to the United States, to Israel, to the Arab states of the Gulf, and possibly to southern Europe, is a very bad outcome.