Muslim World Report

Congress Reacts to Trump's Unilateral Strikes on Iran

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 22, 2025 9:16 AM | 8 min read | 1664 words

TL;DR: Former President Donald Trump’s airstrikes on Iran have drawn bipartisan criticism from Congress, reviving discussions about executive power and the legitimacy of unilateral military actions. Lawmakers are concerned about the implications for both domestic governance and international relations, particularly if Iran retaliates. The situation calls for Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over war powers, potentially leading to significant shifts in U.S. foreign policy.

The Erosion of Congressional Authority and the Recklessness of Unilateral Action

The recent airstrikes ordered by former President Donald Trump against Iran have ignited a significant backlash within Congress. This situation underscores a profound crisis in the American democratic process. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have raised alarms regarding the erosion of congressional authority over war powers—a concern deeply rooted in the U.S. Constitution. Historically, the power to declare war resides with Congress, designed to safeguard against unilateral military action by the executive branch.

This constitutional provision was intended to prevent:

  • Concentration of power
  • Potential for abuse

Reflecting the framers’ intent to establish a system of checks and balances (Howell, 2005; Touchton, Klofstad, & Uscinski, 2020), Trump’s decision to bypass congressional approval undermines this foundational principle and sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations, regardless of political affiliation.

The Broader Implications of Unilateral Action

The implications of Trump’s actions extend far beyond U.S. governance. Iran has long been a focal point in American foreign policy. Unilateral military strikes could provoke a series of retaliatory responses that may destabilize an already volatile region. Potential risks include:

  • Safety of U.S. troops and interests
  • Civilians endangered
  • Exacerbation of humanitarian crises

The prospect of further military engagement raises pressing questions about security and the moral obligations of the United States as a global power. The reactions and decisions made in the coming days will shape the narrative of U.S.-Iran relations and potentially alter the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East for years to come. The division within Congress regarding the legitimacy of Trump’s actions signals a broader debate about America’s role in global conflicts, challenging the very essence of democratic oversight in military affairs.

This situation serves as a litmus test for the resilience of checks and balances in the U.S. government. There is a vital opportunity for lawmakers to work together across party lines, transcending partisan divides, to address the constitutional implications of executive overreach.

What If Iran Retaliates?

Should Iran respond to the U.S. airstrikes with military action, the implications would be profound. Possible outcomes include:

  • Escalation of hostilities
  • Involvement of U.S. allies
  • Wider regional conflict

The specter of military confrontation raises concerns about the safety of American personnel in the region and could further destabilize Iraq, Syria, and other neighboring countries. Such a conflict could culminate in a humanitarian disaster that the U.S. would be compelled to address (McCoy, Rahman, & Somer, 2018).

Key considerations include:

  • Iran’s military capabilities, including asymmetric warfare tactics and conventional missile strikes that could target U.S. assets and allies.
  • Proxy responses, where retaliation resonates with militia groups across Iraq and Syria, leading to asymmetric warfare that complicates U.S. interests further (Murswiek, 2003; McCoy et al., 2018).

Additionally, the global economic impact cannot be overlooked. The Middle East remains a crucial hub for oil production and transportation; any conflict could disrupt shipping lanes, leading to spikes in oil prices affecting economies worldwide. Such economic repercussions could amplify domestic discontent within the U.S., creating an untenable situation for an administration already under substantial scrutiny (Young, 1987).

What If Congress Acts to Reassert Its Authority?

If Congress decides to act decisively in response to Trump’s unilateral strikes, it could catalyze a multifaceted shift in U.S. foreign policy. By introducing a resolution to limit the president’s military powers, Congress could:

  • Reassert its constitutional role in matters of war
  • Bolster the legislative branch’s authority
  • Reaffirm the principles of democratic governance

This action could unify both Republicans and Democrats around a common cause, signaling to the American public and the world that the balance of power must be restored (Pierson, 2000). Such a move would send a strong message to future administrations that unilateral military action will not be tolerated without congressional oversight.

However, Congress must tread carefully. Potential pitfalls include:

  • Partisan conflicts arising if lawmakers focus on scoring political points rather than national security.
  • Divisions within Congress could backfire, potentially escalating tensions with Iran or other adversaries.

A failure to act decisively could embolden those politicians who prefer unilateral action, setting a dangerous precedent. In light of these considerations, Congress must craft a resolution that carefully balances the necessity for military engagement in a volatile region with the preservation of democratic checks and balances.

The Risks of Unilateral Action

Trump’s decision-making bypasses the critical checks and balances that the Constitution established. Should Iran retaliate against the U.S. airstrikes, the implications would be profound (Ruggie, 1982; Levitsky & Helmke, 2004).

As tensions escalate, the possibility of engaging in a conflict characterized by rapid military escalation becomes increasingly likely. The political ramifications of a military escalation could reach far beyond immediate operational concerns. For example, popular sentiment surrounding military interventions among the U.S. populace has undergone significant changes in the last two decades. An ill-coordinated or unjustified military response could lead to widespread public disapproval and protest (McCoy et al., 2018).

Such dissent could further complicate any attempts at securing broader bipartisan support for military actions, straining the already tenuous relationship between the executive and legislative branches. Given these potential risks, the ability of Congress to assert its authority could serve as a counterbalance to the executive’s unilateral actions.

The recent events surrounding Trump’s airstrikes may serve as a pivot point for Congress to reclaim its role in shaping U.S. foreign policy, fostering necessary dialogue around the pertinent issues that arise when unilateral actions are taken.

What If Trump Faces Impeachment Proceedings?

Should calls for impeachment gain traction following his unauthorized military strikes on Iran, the political landscape in the U.S. could undergo a seismic shift. Impeachment proceedings would:

  • Reignite a long-standing debate over executive power
  • Place Trump’s actions under intense scrutiny

This scenario would mobilize both supporters and detractors, creating a charged atmosphere in both political and public spheres. The implications of impeachment could also alter Trump’s standing within the Republican Party, as some members may distance themselves from the former president.

Key considerations include:

  • Media scrutiny and public interest shaping national narratives around U.S. foreign policy.
  • Potential rallies from Trump’s base if impeachment appears politically motivated rather than grounded in upholding constitutional principles.

To effectively respond to this complex political scenario, Congress would need to emphasize unity and bipartisan support for constitutional governance. Building coalitions among lawmakers could create a more compelling case for the need for checks and balances, ultimately fostering a more deliberative approach to U.S. military engagements that prioritizes stewardship over conflict.

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players Involved

In the face of the current crisis, all stakeholders must engage in strategic maneuvers to navigate the complexities of U.S.-Iran relations while upholding democratic principles. For Congress, critical moves include:

  • Prioritizing a clear, bipartisan resolution that condemns unilateral military action.
  • Outlining parameters for future military engagements to reaffirm congressional authority in war powers.

Simultaneously, lawmakers must engage in public discourse to educate constituents about the implications of unilateral military strikes, emphasizing the necessity of a deliberative approach to foreign policy. By fostering an environment for robust public engagement, Congress can generate widespread support for the restoration of checks and balances.

For the Trump administration, recalibrating its foreign policy strategy is essential. The president must weigh the potential consequences of his actions and consider engaging in diplomatic channels to de-escalate tensions with Iran. Pursuing dialogue with Tehran could reduce hostilities and build trust, exploring avenues for cooperation on shared interests such as counterterrorism and regional stability (Mancia et al., 2013; Wolff, 2011).

Additionally, the administration should recognize the importance of international consensus. Engaging allies to address Iranian actions through coordinated diplomatic efforts could help mitigate the perception of U.S. unilateralism.

Ultimately, all players involved in this intricate geopolitical landscape have a role to play in preserving peace, maintaining democratic principles, and preventing further escalation. By prioritizing dialogue, accountability, and multilateral cooperation, the international community can work towards a more stable and secure future rooted in respect for sovereignty and democratic governance.

References

← Prev Next →