By Newspot Nigeria Editorial Board
As tensions rise once again between the United States and Iran—this time with President Donald Trump reportedly considering direct military strikes on Iranian nuclear targets amid the broader Israel-Iran conflict—one must ask: Does the U.S. Constitution allow the President to act alone in starting a war?
The short answer, legally, is No. And politically? Well, that’s where the story gets more complex—and more dangerous.
The Legal Basics: What the Law Says
Under U.S. domestic law, the President can only use military force with authorization from two sources:
- The Constitution (specifically Article II), and
- Congressional authorizations (like the Authorization for Use of Military Force or AUMF).
As clearly outlined by legal experts Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman in a detailed backgrounder republished on June 18, 2025, there is no existing AUMF that authorizes force against Iran. Not the 2001 AUMF (which targets those involved in 9/11), and certainly not the 2002 Iraq-focused AUMF. Iran was never part of either mandate.
So, could Trump act under his Article II commander-in-chief powers alone?
Only in limited situations—typically when:
- There’s an immediate national interest at stake, and
- The operation doesn’t amount to “war” in the constitutional sense (i.e., full-scale, prolonged conflict).
But a strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, especially given Iran’s size, capabilities, and threats of “all-out war,” almost certainly meets that threshold. This would be war. And only Congress has the power to declare war.
Congress Can—and Should—Push Back
Thankfully, Congress is not powerless. Even if the Executive Branch has expanded its interpretation of Article II, Congress can:
- Cut off funding for unauthorized military actions (via the power of the purse),
- Invoke the War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 to demand withdrawal of U.S. forces within 60 days unless it authorizes the mission,
- Or preemptively legislate to block military engagement, as attempted by Senators Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders, and Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie this week.
That last point is key: Congress doesn’t have to wait until missiles fly. It can act now—and it should.
Beyond U.S. Law: The International Angle
Even if Trump found some technical justification under U.S. law, international law still matters.
Under the U.N. Charter, any use of force must be either in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council. Attacking Iran unilaterally—especially preemptively—would likely violate international law, unless there is clear and imminent threat.
Moreover, the “necessity” and “proportionality” principles under international law must be met. Unilateral aggression for political showmanship would fall far outside these boundaries.
A Democracy Check: Why This Matters
Why should Nigerians—and others around the world—care?
Because U.S. military decisions ripple across the globe, especially in fragile regions like the Middle East. A full-scale U.S.-Iran conflict could:
- Disrupt global oil markets (hurting Nigeria’s already fragile economy),
- Create refugee crises,
- Draw in regional and global powers,
- And set new precedents for unilateral executive warfare without public accountability.
This moment serves as a case study in democratic resilience. America’s system—like Nigeria’s—rests on separation of powers. War, the most consequential use of state power, was intentionally placed in the hands of the people’s representatives.
If Trump acts without Congressional approval, it wouldn’t just be unconstitutional—it would be undemocratic.
Final Word
In a world where autocrats routinely bypass legislatures to launch wars, the United States should lead by example, not abandon the principles that define its democratic order. If ever there were a moment to reaffirm Congressional war powers, this is it.
For full coverage and analysis, keep following Newspot Nigeria.
