Congressional approval for military engagement still matters. Here’s why.

Last Saturday’s strike against Iran was perhaps the most consequential U.S. military action in the Middle East of the past decade. As it stands, early indications suggest the strikes significantly eroded but did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, and a tenuous ceasefire has taken hold — though it is far too soon to discern the real effect and longer-term consequences.

This leaves the American people with a question: Does it matter that the president skirted international law and congressional prerogatives if the mission is considered by some a “success”?

The answer is yes. The rule of law still matters. Here’s why.

Despite the gravity and potential ramifications of such a move, Congress held zero hearings and had very little debate leading up to the events of June 21. Like much about the president’s second term, the way this played out was entirely outside the norm and could have lasting implications for how and when the United States decides to go to war in the future.

While it may not feel like it since January, the rule of law still matters. The U.S. remains a signatory to dozens of international agreements related to the use of force, which ultimately protect our national security interests. We have a raft of U.S. laws, including a Constitution and Bill of Rights, that determine how and when our nation may legally engage in conflict abroad.

We are ill-served as a public when the most crucial decision a government can make — whether to put young Americans in harm’s way — isn’t subjected to the highest form of scrutiny and process.

Trump’s predecessors went to great lengths to establish legitimacy before executing military action. George H.W. Bush also secured congressional authorization, a U.N. Security Council resolution, and a substantial coalition before setting out to counter Iraq in 1991. Bill Clinton sought consensus within NATO for airstrikes in response to the Kosovo crisis in 1999. Barack Obama worked hard to gain congressional support and secured a U.N. resolution for military intervention to stop the slaughter of thousands of civilians in Libya in 2011.

These presidents sought to establish such legitimacy for three simple reasons. First, they knew that the decision to engage in international conflict should be made with broad political support at home and ideally abroad. Second, establishing such support can and should lead to more informed decisions and effective execution. Third and most important, it’s the law.

In advance of Saturday’s attack, Trump sought neither congressional approval nor international legitimacy at the United Nations. And it probably wouldn’t have gone well if he tried. His handpicked Director of National Intelligence recently testified that the U.S. had assessed that Iran hadn’t decided whether to build a nuclear weapon.

Moreover, Trump had no clear plan to defend U.S. facilities in the region, as his administration scrambled to evacuate embassies and rush military assets to the region. There’s no indication Iran’s uranium stockpile has been destroyed, calling into question how the United States will deal with it in the future.

Most importantly, there’s no plan regarding Iran’s nuclear program moving forward.

Congressional scrutiny would have raised these questions and exposed these gaps.

Decisions on the use of force should be the most challenging thing to do in our system of government. America’s founders understood this when they sought to constrain the president’s role on matters of war. The authors of the War Powers Act understood this in 1973 when they sought to restore balance to the system following the Vietnam War.

The machinations of Congress can be messy and confounding. Yet, in a democracy, there is no substitute for ensuring the American people have a say in matters of life and death. It’s the way our system was designed to work and to ignore it would do real damage. The right to self-government, which cuts to the core of who we are as a democracy, should not be suspended on issues of war and peace. When robbed of that right, our republic suffers in ways that could be felt for years.

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Damian Murphy is the senior vice president for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_____

©2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC