The president did not seek congressional approval before signing off on the bombing, though it has not been uncommon for presidents to make such decisions unilaterally. Democrats in the U.S. Senate sought to change that, introducing a bill to limit the president's war powers last week but it failed.
The attempt to curb the president's war powers underlines what John Bellinger, former legal adviser to the State Department under President George W. Bush, told UPI is an uneasy balance between Congress and the president.
"Over more than 200 years there's been an uneasy balance of responsibilities between the president and the Congress," Bellinger said. "Over the past few decades, Congress has ceded more and more of its own war powers to the president and acquiesced in the succession of presidents, both Republican and Democratic, using force and deploying the U.S. military in a variety of situations without a [congressional] approval."
The framers of the U.S. Constitution divided the powers related to engaging in war between the president and Congress. The authority to declare war expressly lies with Congress, as does the authority to raise and support armies, regulate the military and direct funds toward related operations.
The president's role under the Constitution remains a source of debate. In practice, presidents, as commanders-in-chief, have been understood to have the authority to use force, including the deployment of troops and military capabilities, in response to threats. When that use of force is a long-term engagement in conflict, such as a major invasion, the president is expected to consult with Congress, Bellinger said.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, aiming to clarify, even limit the president's authority to enter the United States into armed conflict without the approval of Congress.
One of the chief features of the War Powers Resolution that has been generally complied with is that it requires the president to report to Congress within 48 hours of ordering military action. The report must include the reasons for the action and their expected duration.
"It's not clear whether the president complied with the consultation requirements which require a president in all possible circumstances to consult with Congress before the use of force," Bellinger said. "There seems to be a dispute about how much consultation the president did. It appears that he gave notice to some Republican leaders. It's not clear whether he gave notice to Democratic leaders but it certainly doesn't appear that they were extended consultations so the president could get the views of elected members of Congress."
Trump sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on June 23, notifying him of the strike on three Iranian nuclear sites. This was two days after the strike took place.
Trump said the strike was taken to "advance vital United States national interests and in collective self-defense of our ally, Israel, by eliminating Iran's nuclear program." He notes that the strike was limited in scope and purpose and Iranian troops and military forces were not targeted.
Trump cited the War Powers Resolution, adding that he sent this letter to comply with the resolution.
Launching the strike in an effort to defend Israel brings international law into relevancy. According to the international laws of war under the U.N. Charter, uses of force like this are permitted under narrow criteria including self defense or collective self defense. The use of force must also be proportional and necessary.
Israel's launch of a preemptive strike against Iran further muddies the water in regards to whether the United States was justified to strike on Israel's behalf.
"This is why probably most international lawyers will believe that the action is not permissible under international law because, one, the United States itself did not face an imminent armed attack from Iran," Bellinger explained. "Two, there was not evidence that Israel faced an imminent armed attack from Iran."
A separate argument can be made that Israel and Iran have long been engaged in a "simmering war," according to Bellinger.
"There is an argument that there was a pre-existing state of war between Iran and Israel and that Israel really was not starting anything," Bellinger said. "It was simply continuing a simmering war with Iran and that the United States was acting collectively with Israel. Knowing the views of other countries and other international lawyers, that argument will be viewed as a stretch."
Harold Hongju Koh, a legal adviser in the State Department under the Obama administration, told UPI that the executive branch puts the decisions to authorize military force under a test to determine the president's authority to do so.
Walter Dellinger, assistant attorney general under the administration of President Bill Clinton, outlined a legal framework for understanding the president's war powers in 1994, referred to as the nature, duration and interest test. This three-pronged test would be used by the executive branch to determine whether a president can lawfully use military force without congressional approval.
Central to the test is differentiating a short-term or one-off military action, such as a missile strike, from a prolonged engagement that would constitute a war or invasion.
The Trump administration's explanation of the attack on Iran notes that it was limited in scope and purpose, making the argument that Dellinger's test was satisfied.
Koh said whether the test was satisfied or not, the strike against Iran was a clear violation of international law. Koh is a law professor at Yale where he has taught international law for 41 years.
"It's illegal under international law because there's no legitimate self defense rationale," Koh said. "Nobody believes there was an imminent strike by Iran. Tulsi Gabbard and others said there wasn't a nuclear weapon capacity. So it's an act of preemptive self defense which is not permitted in international law."
Koh argues in favor of congressional action to limit the war powers of the president as a matter of good governance.
"The question here is why is Trump allowed to use force against Iran and its proxies," Koh said. "That's something that's obviously an important foreign policy decision. Congress ought to set its views about what is appropriate or at a minimum authorize him to do certain things for a limited period. If they want to authorize him to make sure that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon they can do so. They can also require him to do diplomacy first. The longer term solution to this problem is not going to be a military strike on Iran every six months to two years, whenever they rebuild a nuclear capacity."
Bellinger was in the White House on Sept. 11, when the Bush administration prepared its response to the attacks in New York and Washington. Discussions over Bush's war powers were central to this response and ultimately led to Bellinger and others drafting the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 resolution.
The resolution, approved by Congress, gave Bush the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11." The language also allowed the president to use force to prevent future acts of international terrorism "by such nations, organizations or persons.
In 2002, another resolution was passed to authorize the use of force in Iraq, resulting in the war in Iraq.
According to Bellinger, Presidents Barack Obama, Trump and Joe Biden have used these resolutions to support their authority to use military force against countries beyond the scope of what was originally intended.
"I could not have envisioned how 25 years later it would still be on the books and still be being cited by successive presidents for military operations in a variety of different countries on the theory that we're using force against the individuals, nations or groups that committed the 9/11 attacks," Bellinger said. "This is really, I think, what makes members of Congress reluctant to agree to a new authorization as they think, 'Look what happened to the 2001 and 2002 authorizations.'"
Efforts to repeal these authorizations have been introduced by the 2001 resolution, which is the broader of the two, remains.
Related Links
Democracy in the 21st century at TerraDaily.com
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
