Likewise, the Iranian regime’s ability to rearm, resupply and finance their proxy armies has also been severely damaged, but not completely eliminated, and the regime’s hold over the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran relies on for shipping oil...their primary source of income...has slipped away and is now all but controlled by the U.S. and a naval blockade.
But this war is not over unless and until whatever remains of the Iranian regime has been driven out of power, driven out of Iran, and/or permanently eliminated, for to do otherwise means the threat to Israel, the Middle East, Europe, and indeed to the United States, still exists.
However, here is the problem – the “War Powers Resolution.”
By the letter of the “Resolution” not the law, the resolution stipulates that a U.S. president can undertake military action for a period of 60 days after having informed Congress of the action within 48 hours of the beginning of said action. And while it forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, it does allow for a further 30-day withdrawal period without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF), or a “Declaration of War” by the United States.
The “War Powers Resolution” was adopted in 1973. This “resolution” was in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution and therefore carries the full weight of law, in this case, 50 U.S.C. ch. 33. But there is now a major debate surrounding it, with the question being, “is it Constitutional?” And while every president since its enactment has argued that it violates the “separation of powers” clause by infringing upon their role as “Commander-in-Chief,” to date the United States Supreme Court has never taken up the constitutionality of the “War Powers Resolution,” so the question remains unanswered. That however, is not the only question, as the second question involves the actual 60-90 day time frame.
At best, that timeline itself is arbitrary, at worst it is insane, and may well be unconstitutional in and of itself. Under such a stipulation all that an advisory would need to do is hunker down and hold on for 60-90 days unless Congress declares war, something Congress has not done since World War II.
So with that said, let’s get back to the current situation regarding Iran. President Trump launched military action against Iran on February 28, 2026. The 60-day clock started ticking down when he informed Congress on March 2, 2026. That means the 60-day window starts closing on May 2, 2026, and slams shut 30-days later, on June 1, 2026…that is unless Congress authorizes further action, which at this point in time seems highly unlikely.
So here lets look at three possible options.
Option One: If President Trump were to simply ignore the latest proposed “War Powers Resolution,” Congress would then be forced into a debate over whether to rein in Trump's what they deem to be an “unchecked use” of military force, which could then see our country being thrown into a Constitutional crisis, but only if Congress were to pass the latest Democrat attempt at a “War Powers Resolution.” But that's a mute point, for on Wednesday, April 15th, the Senate rejected the Democrats latest efforts at a “resolution” to force Trump to end U.S. military involvement in Iran, and the following day so too did the House. This latest failed “War Powers Resolution” basically negates what the Democrats hoped would be the curbing of Trump’s authority to continue the war without Congressional approval. So, logic then dictates that if there is no acting “resolution” in place, there is no need for Trump to ignore what does not exist.
Option Two: As for Trump needing Congressional approval to continue the war with Iran, there could be a way to override that as well. How so? While the original 1973 “War Powers Resolution” was designed to prevent prolonged military engagement without Congressional approval, presidents of both parties have questioned its actual Constitutionality. Why so...because Congress has never successfully compelled let alone initiated a withdrawal under its provisions with or without a time frame withdrawal in place. In other words, just because a “resolution” is in place does not mean it meets the letter of the law...which leads directly into Trump's third option.
Option Three: This option is probably unlikely due to the time element involved, but it would help settle both the “resolution's” legality and time frame issues. Simply, if Trump were to ask the SCOTUS to fast track his case for continuing the war with Iran without Congressional approval by presenting, as fact, that past presidents have increasingly relied on “executive authority” to conduct “military operations...“war” with but a different name and a vastly longer time frame then the current 60 to 90 days war with Iran... and that they did so without a needed formal Congressional “Declarations of War” with Trump then citing Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and our 20-year long “undeclared war” with Afghanistan...maybe then this game of word semantics the Democrats are playing would come to an end, and we could finish the job Trump intended to do.
And if none of the options we presented come to fruition, after all the Democrats do not want us to win nor do they want the Iranian people to be free...if they were illegals it would be a completely different story...then we say let our bombs fall over Iran until the second the time frame runs out, and then let Israel finish the job that we all know needs to be done.
Copyright © 2026 Diane Sori and Craig Andresen / All rights reserved.
************************************************************************************U
