Unchecked power and legal violations raise alarm in Washington following U.S aggression in Iran

Department of Research, Studies and International News 24-06-2025

As U.S. President Donald Trump proudly hailed his military assault on Iranian nuclear sites as a “spectacular success,” voices across Washington and beyond have raised serious concerns over the legality and recklessness of the strike. Critics, including key members of Congress and constitutional experts, condemned the move as both unconstitutional and dangerously provocative.

The decision to target Iran without Congressional approval has reignited longstanding debates within the United States over presidential war powers. According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress holds the authority to declare war, a safeguard intended to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral military adventurism. Yet Trump’s decision to circumvent this process has drawn intense scrutiny.

Senator Chris Van Hollen sharply criticized Trump, noting that he had campaigned on promises to end wars and reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East. “Instead,” Van Hollen said, “he has pulled the U.S. into a conflict it cannot control. This action is a blatant constitutional violation.”

The criticism is not limited to Democratic legislators. Trump’s own base, particularly the so-called “America First” faction, has expressed unease. Many of his supporters backed him for his promises to avoid further entanglements in endless wars. Instead of focusing on repairing domestic economic issues or improving crumbling infrastructure, the administration appears to have prioritized further aggression in West Asia, echoing the militaristic policies of prior presidents.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned that Trump’s impulsive escalation could lead to a prolonged regional war with devastating global implications. “He has potentially set off a chain of events that could ensnare the region for generations,” she said. “This is clearly grounds for impeachment.”

The War Powers Resolution of 1973, enacted to rein in presidential overreach after the Vietnam War, requires the president to consult Congress before initiating hostilities, except in cases of an immediate threat. However, Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities, which have operated under international supervision for years, posed no such imminent danger. In fact, even the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a recent report that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Despite this, the Trump administration failed to present any credible legal justification for its attack. Experts argue that the president has no standing to claim self-defense or emergency response, and even those who have served in the U.S. State Department have deemed the action illegal.

Brian Finucane, a former legal adviser at the U.S. State Department and now with the International Crisis Group, described the strike as “patently illegal.” He emphasized that even under the expansive interpretation of presidential war powers embraced by Washington’s political elite, Trump’s strike should still be classified as an act of war, requiring Congressional consent.

This is not the first time the U.S. has relied on outdated and overly broad legislation to justify its wars. Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), granting then-President George W. Bush sweeping powers to wage a global “war on terror.” This vague legislation has since been invoked to justify military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and beyond, resulting in mass casualties, destruction of sovereign nations, and a humanitarian toll that continues to rise.

Iran, along with its strategic allies China and Russia, has long condemned U.S. military interventions as a threat to global peace and stability. This most recent episode further underscores the reckless nature of Washington’s foreign policy, which appears to operate outside of international norms and without regard for the sovereignty of other nations.

Progressive U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking at a rally when the news of the attack broke, denounced the move and reminded the crowd that only Congress can constitutionally authorize acts of war. “The president does not have that authority,” Sanders declared to chants of “No more war!” from the audience.

Even veteran Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi joined in the chorus of condemnation, stating that Trump had unilaterally deployed military force without seeking the approval of the people’s elected representatives. “This is unacceptable,” she said. “The American people deserve answers.”

Yet with the U.S. Senate and House under Republican control, and with many lawmakers still loyal to Trump’s populist rhetoric, concrete action against the former president appears unlikely. Impeachment, while technically possible, remains politically impractical.

As the international community watches closely, it becomes clearer that the U.S. continues to act as a destabilizing force in global affairs, undermining the rules-based order it claims to uphold. In contrast, nations like China, Russia, and Iran continue to advocate for diplomacy, multilateralism, and respect for national sovereignty, principles sorely lacking in Washington’s latest military gamble.