Iran Strikes, Presidential Power and a Long Shadow War: Why the Legality Debate Alone Falls Short

Weeks into a sustained US air campaign targeting Iran, the loudest strand of public debate continues to circle a familiar question: is it legal? Yet a broader examination of constitutional practice, historical precedent and the long arc of US-Iran tensions suggests that legality, while important, may not be the most decisive way to assess the operation.

The US Constitution vests Congress with the authority to declare war. At the same time, it designates the president as commander-in-chief, a role that has been interpreted — across administrations and political parties — to include the power to use military force in defence of national interests, even without prior congressional approval. Over time, this dual structure has produced a practical reality: formal declarations of war have become rare, while limited or time-bound military actions initiated by the executive have become common.

This pattern dates back to the founding era. Thomas Jefferson authorised naval action against Barbary pirates to safeguard American commerce without seeking a declaration of war. That early precedent has echoed through subsequent centuries. The Korean War was fought under the banner of an “international police action,” while later conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq were launched under congressional authorisations that stopped short of formal war declarations.

Legal scholars and government lawyers have, over decades, built a body of interpretation around these practices. Opinions issued by the US Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel have repeatedly affirmed that the president may initiate limited military engagements when important national interests are at stake and when the anticipated scope of the conflict does not rise to the level of full-scale war. This evolving doctrine has effectively normalised unilateral executive action within certain bounds.

Those bounds, however, are not purely legal — they are also political. Congress retains the power to constrain military operations through funding decisions, oversight hearings or explicit legislative prohibitions. Historically, when lawmakers have strongly opposed a conflict, they have found ways to exert pressure, as seen during the later stages of US involvement in Vietnam. The relative absence of such intervention in the current scenario is itself a significant factor shaping the trajectory of the operation.

Equally important is the nature of the military campaign itself. Thus far, the focus has been on air power — precision strikes aimed at strategic targets — rather than a large-scale ground invasion. There has been no move toward conscription or a prolonged troop deployment, elements that typically trigger broader political and legal scrutiny. By keeping the operation limited in scope and duration, policymakers appear to be operating within the space that past precedent has carved out for executive action.

The judiciary, meanwhile, has historically played a minimal role in resolving disputes over war powers. Courts have often declined to intervene, citing the political question doctrine and deferring to the elected branches of government. As a result, legal challenges to military operations rarely produce definitive rulings, leaving the balance of power to be negotiated between the executive and legislative branches.

Yet focusing narrowly on constitutional mechanics risks overlooking a larger and more consequential context: the enduring hostility between the United States and Iran. Since the 1979 hostage crisis, relations between the two countries have been marked by cycles of confrontation, proxy conflict and intermittent de-escalation. The Islamic Republic has frequently relied on allied non-state actors to project power, blurring the lines between direct and indirect warfare.

Groups such as Hezbollah have been central to this strategy, carrying out attacks that have targeted US personnel and interests. The 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Lebanon, which killed 241 American service members, remains one of the most significant examples. During the Iraq War, Iranian support for insurgent networks — particularly through the provision of improvised explosive devices—contributed to American casualties and deepened perceptions of an ongoing, undeclared conflict.

In more recent years, tensions have continued to simmer. A series of attacks on US bases, personnel and regional assets — often attributed to Iran-backed groups — has reinforced the view within Washington that hostilities are persistent, even if they do not take the form of conventional warfare. From this perspective, the current air campaign is less a sudden escalation than a continuation of a long-running confrontation.

This framing has important implications for how the legality question is understood. If the United States is already engaged in a sustained pattern of conflict with Iran, the absence of a formal declaration of war may carry less practical significance. Instead, the debate shifts toward whether the chosen form of military response is appropriate, effective and proportionate to the perceived threat.

Critics of the operation often invoke constitutional concerns as a way to challenge its legitimacy, but their objections frequently extend beyond legal doctrine. Questions about timing, strategic objectives, regional stability and the risk of escalation are central to the discussion. Supporters, meanwhile, tend to emphasise deterrence, the degradation of adversary capabilities and the need to respond decisively to ongoing threats.

In this sense, the legality debate can function as a proxy for deeper disagreements about foreign policy. It offers a clear and accessible framework for public argument, but it does not, on its own, resolve the more complex issues at stake. Whether the operation ultimately proves justified will depend less on constitutional interpretation and more on its outcomes — both immediate and long-term.

The history of US military engagement suggests that legal authority, while necessary, is rarely sufficient to settle such questions. From limited strikes to extended conflicts, the decisive factors have typically been political will, strategic clarity and public support. Those same factors are likely to shape the trajectory of the current campaign.

As the situation continues to evolve, the focus may gradually shift away from abstract legal debates towards concrete results: Has the operation reduced the threat? Has it deterred further aggression? Or has it deepened instability in an already volatile region?

These are the questions that will ultimately define the legacy of the campaign. And they are questions that lie beyond the narrow confines of legality — rooted instead in judgment, consequences and the enduring complexities of international conflict.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.