Muslim World Report

Bipartisan War Powers Resolution Could Challenge Trump's Iran Policies

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 24, 2025 10:23 AM | 7 min read | 1319 words

TL;DR: A recent proposal for a bipartisan War Powers Resolution seeks to limit former President Trump’s military authority regarding Iran. This post examines the implications of congressional action and inaction, the potential rifts within the Republican Party, and the need for a strategic response from various stakeholders in U.S. foreign policy.

The Situation

In recent weeks, a prominent senator has raised the prospect of bipartisan support for a War Powers Resolution intended to limit the military authority of former President Donald Trump, particularly in relation to Iran. This development occurs against a complex backdrop where skepticism abounds among Republican lawmakers. Many express concerns regarding Trump’s erratic behavior but hesitate to take public action. This dynamic underscores a troubling reality within the Republican Party: Trump’s influence remains strong, effectively stifling genuine accountability for his controversial actions, particularly regarding foreign policy.

Trump’s militaristic rhetoric towards Iran—likely a response to intricate geopolitical dynamics and domestic pressures—invites critical scrutiny of U.S. foreign policy. The American relationship with Iran has long been fraught, characterized by:

  • Military interventions
  • Punitive sanctions
  • Profound humanitarian crises

Trump’s recent calls for aggressive military measures reflect a historical pattern of U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes military might over diplomacy, thereby exacerbating potential violence and instability in the region. This context necessitates a thorough examination of congressional measures designed to rein in presidential military powers and the implications of inaction.

Consequences of Inaction

The consequences of congressional inaction could be dire. Should Congress fail to curb Trump’s military authority, potential outcomes include:

  • Deepened suffering of ordinary citizens in both Iran and the U.S.
  • Complications in international relations

Military interventions historically have led to long-lasting global repercussions, such as:

  • Refugee crises
  • The rise of extremist ideologies
  • The erosion of international norms (Hendrickson, 2013)

These realities underline the high stakes involved in the ongoing struggle over war powers in a democracy, complicated by an increasingly blurred line between domestic politics and international relations.

What if Congress successfully limits Trump’s military authority?

If Congress were to enact a War Powers Resolution effectively curtailing Trump’s military authority, this could mark a pivotal moment in the struggle for checks and balances within U.S. governance. Potential outcomes include:

  • Enhanced legislative oversight over military actions
  • Broader bipartisan cooperation on national security matters (Newton, 2012)

This scenario sends a resonant message to the international community affirming that American democracy values accountability and thoughtful deliberation over unilateral military action.

However, the implications extend beyond U.S. borders. A reduction in Trump’s military prerogative might:

  • Encourage Iran to adopt a more defiant stance, escalating geopolitical tensions
  • Prompt Iranian expansion in neighboring countries like Iraq and Syria

Additionally, it could provoke an internal fracture within the Republican Party, as factions rally around either Trump’s combative foreign policy approach or a return to diplomatic strategies. This struggle reflects a deep conflict between traditional conservative principles and the populist nationalism that Trump embodies (Fiorina & Abrams, 2008).

What if Trump escalates military actions despite congressional pushback?

Conversely, should Trump escalate military actions against Iran in defiance of congressional constraints, the ramifications may prove catastrophic. Potential consequences include:

  • Significant civilian casualties
  • Domestic and international outrage (Howell & Pevehouse, 2005)

A renewed commitment to military intervention could entangle the United States in a protracted conflict, reminiscent of Iraq and Afghanistan, diverting critical resources from pressing domestic needs. Additionally, aggressive military actions could provoke retaliatory strikes from Iran or its allies, posing risks to:

  • American forces in the region
  • U.S. interests globally (Driesen, 2020)

Such escalation could also embolden adversaries like China and Russia to strengthen ties with Iran, isolating the U.S. on the international stage and undermining efforts to contain nuclear proliferation (Porter, 2018).

What if Trump’s Iran policy creates lasting divisions within the GOP?

The internal dynamics within the Republican Party present another critical outcome. As right-wing figures like Dave Rubin and Charlie Kirk confront one another over Trump’s Iran policy, a significant rift may materialize. Possible implications include:

  • Reevaluation of what it means to be a “Trump Republican”
  • Electoral challenges in both primaries and general elections, with moderates pushing back against a hardline approach (Iyengar et al., 2018)

Moreover, a fracturing GOP might inadvertently empower the Democratic Party, amplifying calls for accountability and transparency in U.S. foreign policy matters. This shift could lead to:

  • A more unified stance against militarism
  • Reassessments of the U.S.’s role in global conflicts

However, it may also invoke backlash among die-hard Trump supporters, further entrenching a toxic political climate steeped in polarization (Iyengar et al., 2012).

Strategic Maneuvers

In light of these multifaceted scenarios, various stakeholders must consider their strategic positions and potential actions.

For Congress

The legislative branch must assert its constitutional responsibilities proactively. Lawmakers are urged to:

  • Prioritize bipartisan efforts to establish clear limits on presidential military authority.
  • Engage constituents through forums to foster awareness regarding the implications of unchecked executive power.
  • Collaborate with international allies to present a unified front against unilateral military actions (Fisher & Adler, 1998).

Congress should also monitor the consequences of military actions taken under Trump’s authority, insisting on:

  • Regular reports
  • Accountability measures

For the Biden Administration

While the current administration may not be directly implicated in Trump’s dynamics, adopting a clear foreign policy regarding Iran is paramount. Strategies should include:

  • Prioritizing diplomacy over militaristic engagement
  • Implementing economic measures to alleviate the impact of sanctions on ordinary Iranians (Regilme, 2022)

The Biden administration should actively engage with Congress to bolster legislative support for a diplomatic approach, emphasizing the broader benefits of regional stability.

For the GOP

Right-leaning figures should critically assess their positions and reassess loyalty to Trump’s militaristic policies. Advocates for a more measured approach must:

  • Articulate the human and economic costs of military escalation.
  • Build coalitions with moderates to strengthen factions promoting diplomacy and accountability (McCright & Dunlap, 2011).

For Grassroots Movements and Civil Society

Advocacy groups must remain vigilant in monitoring and critiquing military strategies, holding elected officials accountable. Key actions include:

  • Expanding awareness campaigns on the ramifications of military actions in Iran.
  • Fostering transnational solidarity with Iranian civil society to amplify peace voices.

Ultimately, the evolving political landscape surrounding Trump’s Iran policy heralds significant uncertainty but also presents an opportunity for critical reflection on U.S. foreign engagement. Each stakeholder possesses the capacity to influence this narrative, and strategic actions can redirect the course away from conflict towards accountability and diplomacy. The stakes are high, and the urgency for a thoughtful, principled approach to foreign policy has never been more pressing.

References

  • Driesen, D. M. (2020). The Limits of Military Power: U.S. Engagement in the Middle East. [Journal of International Relations].
  • Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political Polarization in the American Public. [Annual Review of Political Science].
  • Fisher, L., & Adler, M. (1998). Congressional Power Over War and Peace. [Political Science Quarterly].
  • Hendrickson, R. C. (2013). Peacekeeping or Fighting? The Costs of Military Interventions. [Foreign Affairs].
  • Howell, W. G., & Pevehouse, J. C. (2005). While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers. [Political Science Quarterly].
  • Koch, J., & Sullivan, D. (2010). Military Intervention: A Historical Perspective. [International Security].
  • Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2006). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. [London: Farrar, Straus and Giroux].
  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool Dudes: The Denial of Climate Change Among Conservative White Males. [Global Environmental Change].
  • Newton, K. (2012). The Role of Congress in U.S. National Security. [Congressional Research Service].
  • Porter, G. (2018). The Geopolitics of Iran and the New Cold War. [Middle East Journal].
  • Regilme, S. S. (2022). Economic Sanctions and Humanitarian Crises: The Case of Iran. [Journal of Humanitarian Affairs].
  • Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M. S., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2012). The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. [Annual Review of Political Science].
  • Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M. S., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2018). Affective Polarization in the United States: Affected by Everything and Affected by Nothing. [Public Opinion Quarterly].
← Prev Next →