Live updates: Follow the latest news on Iran war
The US conflict against Iran could soon be ruled illegal because of a law that forces presidents to go to Congress and ask for permission to wage war.
Under the US Constitution, a president is allowed to start military action through his powers as commander-in-chief. But a 1973 law called the War Powers Resolution means Congress must either declare war or authorise a conflict within 60 days for it to continue.
When President Donald Trump, along with Israel, initiated the current conflict against Iran on February 28, that 60-day countdown started. The time frame expires at the end of the day on Thursday.
Unless Congress approves the war on Friday, it could technically be considered illegal. Mr Trump does have the option of asking for a 30-day extension to allow time to withdraw troops. But this would require a vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the White House has shown no sign of wanting an extension.
It is possible the Trump administration hoped to avoid dealing with the deadline at all, given that the White House said the war would only last four to six weeks.
Two months later, it appears US forces will be deployed to the Middle East for a long time to come. Though a ceasefire is in effect, the US military remains in the Gulf enforcing a naval blockade against Iran, where a new, hardline regime seems determined to hold out against the US indefinitely.
Since February 28, Democrats have tried five times to force a vote on the Iran war but these attempts have failed, with Republicans controlling both chambers.
Chuck Schumer, the senior Democrat in the Senate, said his party would force a sixth vote this week.
Legal experts say the most likely course for the Trump administration is simply to ignore the law. His predecessors Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were criticised for doing so during the 1999 Kosovo bombing campaign and the 2011 Libya intervention, respectively.
After the US conducted a raid to capture then-president Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, an attempt then to enforce the War Powers Resolution was blocked by JD Vance, who as Vice President had the power to break a 50-50 deadlock in the Senate.
At the time, he said the congressional powers were “fundamentally fake and unconstitutional” and would “not change anything about how we conduct foreign policy.”
Michael Glennon, who as a young lawyer in 1973 helped craft the War Powers Resolution, predicted the Trump administration will ignore the law “and will simply continue using the armed forces in situations involving hostilities or imminent hostilities in the Gulf.”
He said that by even addressing the law or asking for an extension, the Trump administration runs the risk of appearing to acknowledge its validity.
Mr Glennon, who now is professor of constitutional and international law at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, told The National that he considered the war in Iran, and last year's strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, to be unconstitutional.
“It's clearly beyond the Constitutional authority of the President, acting without congressional approval, because there was no likelihood of an imminent attack on the United States or its armed forces,” he said.
The War Powers Resolution came into force against the wishes of then-president Richard Nixon during the final stages of the Vietnam War. He vetoed the legislation but Congress, wary of how the US had been pulled into the two-decade conflict, overturned his block.
Although Republicans have previously blocked Democrats' attempts to force a vote on the Iran war, political considerations mean Congress might now get a say.
The Iran war has become an albatross around Mr Trump's neck, pulling his approval ratings ever lower. With only six months until the midterm elections, a majority of Americans are fed up with rising gasoline prices, and many of his supporters are disillusioned after he campaigned on a promise of not starting new wars. Mr Trump's messaging that he might have saved America from having to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran in the future seems to have won him much sympathy.
Republican Senator John Curtis said he now supports Congress having a say in the war.
“In America, constitutional limits are in place to temper the president from unilateral authority,” he said in a statement. “I support the President’s actions taken in defence of American lives and interests. However, I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval.”
If Congress were to vote on the Iran war and decline to authorise it, Mr Trump would be afoul of the law.
But even then it is not clear what could be done about it, given the Supreme Court's reluctance to adjudicate politicians challenging executive authority.
“The Supreme Court has largely closed the door to congressional standing, so you would have to try to find some member of the armed forces who has received orders to participate in some way in the war in the Gulf, and who declines to obey those orders because they are unlawful as violations of the War Powers Resolution,” Mr Glennon explained.
