Let's state the obvious: we are at war with Iran.
My evidence? Turn on your television. US forces, working with Israel, killed Iran's supreme leader and many of his top advisers. We sank Iran's navy and destroyed most of its air force. We bombed thousands of military sites throughout the region. President Trump, the commander in chief, has demanded Iran's “unconditional surrender.” He routinely refers to this as a “war.” Pete Hegseth, who calls himself Secretary of War, also describe this like a war dailylike last week when he said: “We set the terms of this war.”
The truth that we are at war is so simple that only politicians and lawyers could make it seem complicated.
In fact, a lot of Republican legislators insist that we are not actually at war. House Speaker Mike Johnson: “We are not at war right now. We are four days into a very specific and clear mission and operation.” Florida Rep. Brian Mast: “No one should classify this as war. These are combat operations.” South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham: “I don't know if this is technically a war.” Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin: “This is not a war. We have not declared war.” Representative of Florida Anna Paulina Luna: “Strategic attacks are not war”
Pearl Harbor was also a strategic attack.
Then there is the say that we are not at war with Iran but Iran is at war with us. This is only half true, to the extent that Iran has been committing acts of war against the United States since it took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. But waging a war in response does not make it any less of a war.
One is tempted to invoke George Orwell's “1984,” in which the existence or non-existence of a war depends on what the Ministry of Truth (or Social Truth) publishes on any given day. But there is nothing so literary at stake. This is (mostly) legalism run amok.
The main reason Republicans in Congress reject the W-word is simple. If it is simply a “combat operation” or a “strategic attack” in response to an “imminent threat,” then the president has the authority to do so without congressional approval. If it is a war, then it could be said to be illegal and unconstitutional under the War Powers Resolution or the Constitution itself, because under the Constitution declaring war is the sole responsibility of Congress. And the last thing this Congress wants to do is take responsibility for nothing.
This explains, at least in part, why Trump insists he had a “feeling” that Iran was about to attack us. He has even suggested that Iran was simply weeks far from having a nuclear weapon and that avoided an imminent “nuclear war.”
The War Powers Resolution – nominally rejected by every president since it was passed in 1973 – was intended to restrict the president's ability to use force without the consent of Congress. It was counterproductive. It says the president can respond militarily to threats as he deems necessary, but must then go to Congress within 60 days to gain approval to continue hostilities. The result: Presidents have free rein to wage war for about two months, unless Congress stops them.
But congressional Republicans don't want to stop Trump. That is tactically defensible, if you believe that this war was necessary. But the tactic forces Congress to say, in effect, “Don't think they're lying. This is not a war.”
For those who only vaguely remember what they learned in high school about the War Powers Resolution (or, for that matter, the Constitution), this waste of legalism only fuels confusion.
But there is another factor that drives evasion. Trump made staying out of “forever wars” a central tenet of America First. There is no textbook definition of “forever war” (always a ridiculous term), so you can understand why some people believed it was code for “Middle East war” or just war of any kind. The irony is that Trump could plausibly argue that this war is permitted under the Authorization to Use Military Force that George W. Bush received in 2001. But symbolically that would mean Trump is continuing Bush's “forever war.”
Regardless, Republicans are not only on a legal clock to get this over with, but also a political one. Vote sample that Americans, including many Republicans, have no thirst for a protracted conflict, which makes sense given that they were not asked to prepare for this war at all. Hence the insistence that this war will be brief and orderly.
The problem is that Iran knows it. That's why they don't have to win, they just have to endure the bombings until the public or Trump loses patience with this very real war.
UNKNOWN: @JonahDispatch
Perspectives
Perspectives from the LA Times offers AI-generated analysis of Voices content to provide all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news articles.
point of view
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. Content is not created or edited by the Los Angeles Times editorial staff.
Ideas expressed in the piece.
-
The United States and Israel are engaged in a war with Iran, as evidenced by military actions that killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior officials, destroyed Iran's air force and navy, and bombed thousands of military installations across the region.[1]. President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth routinely refer to the operation as a “war,” and Trump demands an “unconditional surrender” from Iran.[1][2].
-
Republican lawmakers are avoiding the “war” designation for legal and political reasons rather than factual ones. The distinction is constitutionally important because declaring war is the sole responsibility of Congress; However, by calling it a “combat operation” or “strategic attack,” the president can act without congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution.[1].
-
Congressional Republicans refuse to take responsibility for military action by denying its fundamental nature. This legalism obscures accountability and allows the executive branch to wage military campaigns for approximately 60 days without the consent of Congress, contradicting the original intent of the War Powers Resolution.[1].
-
Republicans face dual time pressures: a legal clock under the War Powers Resolution and a political one because Americans lack the appetite for protracted conflict. This creates an incentive to mischaracterize the operation as limited and short-term, even as the scope and intensity of military operations continues.[1].
-
Iran benefits from this rhetorical avoidance because the country does not need to win militarily; it simply needs to survive the patience of the American public or Trump's commitment to the campaign.[1].
Different points of view on the subject.
-
The operation represents a selective military response to imminent threats rather than a declaration of war in the traditional sense. Trump administration officials have focused on degrading Iran's military capabilities (including its ballistic missiles, navy, and security infrastructure) with the explicit goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.[3].
-
The military campaign has limited, clearly defined objectives focused on destroying Iran's ability to project power rather than achieving regime change or territorial conquest. The stated mission focuses on eliminating threats to regional security and U.S. forces, not on conquering or governing Iranian territory.[3].
-
Presidential authority to respond to imminent military threats is established in existing legal frameworks, including the War Powers Resolution and Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001. The operation can be legally justified within these parameters without requiring a formal declaration of war by Congress.[3].
-
The rapid success of Operation Epic Fury – with Trump stating that the military campaign is “very complete” and that Iran has “nothing left” in military capability – suggests that it is a focused military operation rather than the start of a protracted conflict.[2][3]. The condensed timeline and stated objectives support the characterization as a limited military operation rather than an all-out war.
