Growing Concerns About Trump’s Unilateral Military Decisions Against Iran

A growing concern about the unfettered presidential authority and the diminishing adherence to the rule of law have defined the perception of President Trump’s administration. The escalating disputes and debates focus on the legal aspects of President Trump’s movement to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities amid Israel’s ongoing conflict with Iran. Legislation was previously introduced by Congress members to prohibit any such military action without their approval. However, the enthusiasm exhibited by the lawmakers to exert their constitutional control waned as they anticipated a peace agreement between Israel and Iran, suggesting a limited challenge to the President’s unilateral actions.

In understanding the constitutional implications of Presidential actions, Supreme Court precedents often yield the most confusing answers. However, no legal bounding cases offer clear-cut guidance on the legitimacy of Iran’s attack as the kind we’ve just seen. The only related case from the Supreme Court traces back to the Civil War period. In this case, the court held that Congress exclusively holds the authority to declare war. Yet, should a foreign country invade U.S. lands, the President, as the prime Commander-in-Chief, can undertake necessary actions without the requirement of congressional approval.

The case went on to clarify that while the President cannot initiate war, the court has yet to provide an authoritative definition distinguishing ‘war’ from an ‘armed conflict’. Thus, the question of legality remains. Indeed, there have been no formal wars declared by Congress since World War II. However, there have been instances where Presidents were given the green light to participate in combat, referred to as wars in the common vernacular—for instance, the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf.

In the absence of explicit authorization from Congress, however, Presidents have often consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. While not creating binding law, the O.L.C. issues opinions demarcating the legal limits for Presidential actions. As such, Presidents have embarked on notable hostilities on their own accord, based on these very opinions—think of Korea, Kosovo, and Libya.

The cheque on the unilateral use of force by the President came with the enactment of the War Powers Resolution in 1973, overriding President Nixon’s veto who deemed it unconstitutional. Among other things, the War Powers Resolution insists that the President should consult with Congress before deploying armed forces into hostilities, besides seeking congressional approval for deploying troops in conflicts longer than sixty days.

However, the implementation of this Resolution has been fraught with difficulties. Neither Democratic nor Republican Presidents have adhered to it fully, and Congress itself has been relatively passive. In recent times, some legislators proposed fresh War Powers Resolutions, aiming to prevent further attacks on Iran by President Trump without official Congressional authorization. Still, resistance came from the House Speaker who deemed the existing War Powers Resolution an unconstitutional constraint on the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief.

Over the years, the Office of Legal Counsel has repeatedly furnished opinions greatly expanding the scope of the President’s powers. Each presidentially-executed armed conflict without congressional approval has subsequently broadened the Executive’s understanding of what is constitutionally allowed. This has culminated in a situation where a President can, with seeming lawfulness, order military strikes on a country that hasn’t attacked the U.S., without consulting Congress.

The justification came from President Trump who referred to the same old O.L.C. guidelines stating the strikes “discretely targeted” Iran’s nuclear facilities, were “limited in nature and objective,” and did not involve ground forces—indicating that the operation, according to O.L.C., falls short of war, eliminating the need for congressional authorization.

President Trump’s rationalizations also mirror O.L.C. perspectives that a President has the freedom to unilaterally deploy military force overseas in order to safeguard “national interests” and ensure “collective self-defense.” The definition of “national interests” has been expanded to include activities such as “ensuring safe food and medicine delivery in Somalia” under President Bush Sr.; “helping an ally or strategic partner, Iraq” under President Obama; and preventing “the use and proliferation of chemical weapons” in Syria, during Trump’s first term.

Looking at ‘collective self-defense’, it not only signifies fending off an imminent attack, but also includes preventing future assaults and safeguarding allies. An expert recently expressed concern about the unsettling fact that “there is no constitutional rule that would answer the question” concerning the lawfulness of the Iran strikes.

However, some lawmakers think it’s time for Congress to revisit the acceptance of past executive department traditions as justifications for one-sided military actions in the future. The necessity for this is bolstered by a confidential Defense Intelligence Agency report that suggested – to Trump’s chagrin – his strike did not completely neutralise Iran’s nuclear facilities. If confirmed, this may compel him to make another strike in the ‘national interest’.

As for the involvement of courts in the discourse on war powers, they generally avoid such debates, often categorizing them as policy issues rather than legal ones. This means that if Congress does not curtail the President’s use of the military, or even considers such checks unconstitutional, the President’s unilateral power would remain almost limitless.

Prior to the Iran strikes, attention focused on Trump’s nationalization of the California National Guard. This move was defended by the administration on the grounds that violent episodes among ICE protestors in Los Angeles constituted a ‘rebellion’ and required this step.

The Ninth Circuit court determined that Trump’s actions were likely consistent with a law that enables the President to take such measures when unable to enforce the laws of the United States using regular forces. What we’ve learned from this is that the curtailment of high-stakes uses of presidential power, both domestically and overseas, relies mainly on the President’s self-restraint.

Law is not an all-encompassing tool that can solely contain executive power. It sheds light on a path, but that path may sometimes lead to a dead end, leaving the decision-making power in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. This case underlines the immense power the President wields while highlighting the urgent need for effective checks and balances to uphold democracy.