Op-ed / Commentary

The Clock is Ticking...What Comes Next?

By: Diane Sori and Craig Andresen / Right Side Patriots 

This article is the authors opinion alone, and does not necessarily represent the views of blogspot.com or Google  

      

On February 28, 2026, President Donald Trump began what no U.S. president had the courage to do over the past 47-years...he began military action against Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. In concert with Israel, over the past two months the radical islamic regime’s military assets have been pounded into the dirt, pounded to the bottom of the sea, and eliminated from the air. The ranks of the regime’s leadership have been decimated, and their ability to continue striking Israel, their Arab neighbors, and U.S. forces in the region has been severely weakened, but not completely eliminated.

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.

A conundrum indeed, with the question(s) now being what happens next? Will President Trump ignore the 1973 “War Powers Resolution”...simply a check on executive power...and continue the war on his terms alone; will he try get Congress to officially authorize further military action; or will he attempt to fast track his case for continuing said war to the Supreme Court? Only time itself will tell for the now extended ceasefire...a ceasefire the Iranians have broken by their firing upon ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz...does end this week

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  

RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE! 

Today Tuesday, April 21st from 7 to 8:30pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'The Clock is Ticking...What Comes Next?'...'New Alliances vs. Reality'; and 'A Week of Astonishing Absurdity.' Tune in to RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on https://rspradio1.com Click 'LISTEN LIVE.'

 

Op-ed:
Going to war with less than noble intentions
By: Diane Sori

OK guys …let’s cut to the chase…do NOT…I repeat do NOT fall for Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s abrupt policy change of now trying to ‘appear noble’ by saying he will wait until Congress returns to session to get the votes needed to attack Syria. You all know as well as I do that this is NOTHING but saber-rattling of the worst kind…saber rattling to ‘save face’ and make himself appear a hero, and also to use this delay as his way out of a NO win situation of his own doing…as in 'red lines' that exist only in his mind.

And NO image speaks louder than that of Obama and Biden appearing together on Saturday in a Rose Garden news conference…something Obama only does when he needs to look presidential and feign concern by using the all important (to him) photo-op. Showing weakness and the demeanor of a man who’s playing a dangerous game with world leaders whose league he is way out of, Obama now claims that while the US should and will still take military action against Syrian President al-Assad for his (supposed) use of chemical weapons on civilians, he has now suddenly had a light bulb moment and decided to wait until Congress returns to session on September 9th to seek approval to do so.

What Obama does NOT say is that he did NOT make that decision to go the Congressional route…our allies who will NOT support him or his actions made the decision for him. Even America’s staunchest ally, Great Britain, wants NO part in attacking Syria as witnessed when the House of Commons refused to support any military action…NO matter how limited…against Syria.

And don’t let him try to fool you otherwise.

And while still bloviating that US national security interests are at stake…which we all know they are NOT for our contact with Syria and theirs with us has been fleeting at best for many years now…Obama knows that if the US acts unilaterally and goes it alone that he just might ignite an all out Middle East war with Israel at the epicenter…but that could very well have been his game plan all along, and been so since he first started bloviating about 'red lines' in the sand...maybe even using the same two words Netanyahu used when speaking about Iran just to throw it back in his face.  I would NOT but it passed Obama to do just that.

But to make him appear noble…to feign loyalty to the Constitution…back to Congress he suddenly decides to go.

“President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander in chief and undermining the authority of future presidents,” Congressman Peter King (R-NY), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “The president doesn’t need 535 members of Congress to enforce his own red line.”

And that’s because all Obama’s rhetoric of ‘red lines’ and crossing them were and still are NOTHING but empty talk…empty talk that other world leaders NEVER took seriously to begin with. Obama’s words…words strung together just to pander to and appease his base…are just another reminder that he has set America’s foreign policy back God knows how many years, and is setting up what will likely be nothing but a bitterly fought partisan debate on whether to attack Syria or NOT and will be done just to waste time so Obama can say, ‘I followed the Constitution in regards to the War Powers clause and still Congress fought me and denied me what I want’.

And so like a little child stamping his feet and determined to get his own way, Obama will just issue another Executive Order or whatever it is he does when he’s NOT on the golf course or taking another vacation, and will send America back to war and for what…for more American blood to be spilled…for more American lives to be lost…because rest assured Obama will NOT be content with just shooting off a few missiles. After all he has to rebuild his reputation as ‘the man who sent al-Qaeda running’ (said sarcastically with a deep sigh).

And least anyone forget that claims of Assad gassing his own people have been made before and were ignored, but now suddenly this time is different…this time pictures of dead children lined up in a row are being used as justification that his ‘red line’ has been crossed…pictures to tug at the heartstrings of those whose votes he needs…pictures as phony as he is.

So with these pictures fresh in everybody's minds, this past weekend he sent over to House Speaker John Boehner his ‘proposed resolution’ to reign Cruise missiles down on the wrong side in this battle (remember it’s NOT Assad who fired off the chemical weapons). Obama’s proposed resolution gives him the authorization to use force if he deems it necessary to prevent the further use of weapons of mass destruction and protect the US and our allies from the threats posed by such weapons. But please pray tell how the use of such weapons in Syria…and in a highly limited use at that…poses a threat to us here in America, and if they were ever used on let’s say our ally Israel, I can safely say Obama wouldn’t do a damn thing about it.

This resolution is just lip-service and a sham used in a desperate attempt by Obama to try and show the world that America stands behind him…guess what…we don’t for ‘We the People’ have grown weary of war…especially wars with people that are NOT America’s friend and with people that this president cares more about than he does about the American troops who might be sent there to fight against them.

But if his resolution is approved that would allow Obama to ‘save face’ for this vote would then honor the Constitution and its words that only Congress can declare war…as in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, what most call the ‘War Powers Clause’. But if his resolution is voted down and Obama then decides to go it alone and attack Syria without Congressional approval, he actually would NOT be the first president to make that decision as the last war Congress declared outright was WWII. Every war since then…Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya...has been fought with something less than a fully supported declaration of war by Congress. Our country has been on the proverbial 'slippery slope' for decades, gradually shifting the power to declare and wage war away from Congress and towards the President, and that needs to be stopped and returned solely to its Constitutionally given rightful deciders …Congress and Congress alone.

So as of today we stand at a crossroads as Obama is lobbying hard to get his wish, for both the House and Senate must pass the exact same bill to give him that authorization to take our country to war...to in actuality put our country into the middle of Syria's civil war.

And hopefully with many Democrats against this Obama will NOT get his wish…that is if RINOS extraordinaire John McCain and Lindsay Graham stay the hell out of this and keep their big mouths shut.