May 1st, a decisive date for the continuation of the war in Iran? The countdown has begun for Donald Trump

The attachment of Americans to May 1st is only relative, which works well for the Congress members, who have a lot on their plates before Friday. Across the Atlantic, lawmakers and constitutionalists see this date as a potential turning point in the war against Iran initiated two months ago by Donald Trump, with the support of Israel. The reason? The deadline for the president to unilaterally decide on the engagement of the United States on the ground, without Capitol approval, is theoretically coming to an end.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law aimed at limiting the president’s ability to declare war without any checks or balances. The idea back then was to avoid other conflicts like the Vietnam War, with tremendous costs and human losses (about 60,000 American deaths between 1955 and 1975).

These provisions give the White House a 60-day window, starting from the notification to Congress of the deployment of armed forces in operation, to take emergency measures. The intent is not to give a blank check to the presidency but rather to allow Congress time to reflect on the utility of continuing the war.

“In addition, the American president usually needs a formal authorization from Congress – House of Representatives and Senate – to continue hostilities,” summarizes Marie-Christine Bonzom, a political scientist and journalist specializing in the United States, for RTL.fr. If Donald Trump launched the Epic Fury operation on February 28, 62 days before May 1st, he officially justified his decision to the presidents of both chambers on March 2, 48 hours later, which is authorized by this law.

To attack Tehran, the leader explained that he had acted under his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, as provided for in the Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This was to protect Washington bases in the region and “promote vital national interests of the United States,” within the framework of “the legitimate collective defense of our regional allies, including Israel,” as recalled by the New York Times. These motivations are being criticized by the Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers.

They simply disapprove of Donald Trump’s right to use force: “The president must, in all cases, consult with Congress before engaging U.S. armed forces in hostilities, or in situations where circumstances clearly indicate imminent involvement in hostilities, and, after each such engagement, he must regularly consult Congress until the U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been withdrawn from those situations,” the War Powers Resolution reads.

The Democrats have tried several times to invoke the famous resolution taken during the Vietnam War to challenge the offensive against the Islamic Republic and put pressure on the executive.

“This choice of war, ill-considered and costly, was undertaken without any plan, objective, exit strategy, public support, or approval from the U.S. Congress,” the leader of the minority in the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries, emphasized last week, according to ABC News. However, Republican senators have blocked this measure five times, showing little regard for the logic of parties in the upper chamber and arguing that the current administration has so far complied with the text.

With May 1st approaching, the balance could be upset in Congress. Could Donald Trump’s own majority turn against him once the deadline is up? “I support the actions taken by the president to defend American lives and interests. However, I will not support any prolonged military action beyond a 60-day period without Congress’s approval,” Senator John Curtis of Utah stated in early April in a DeseretNews op-ed, invoking the heavy toll of the Vietnam War and the limits put in place since then. “For obvious reasons of national security, the president must have the power to act promptly against threats, without waiting for Congress’s approval. However, a 60-day period is a sufficient window to take emergency action in response to a national threat, then return the decision to the elected representatives of the people,” he added.

A possible additional 30-day extension of the deadline is also outlined in the 1973 law. To do this, the president must certify in writing that this additional period is crucial to facilitate the secure withdrawal of engaged forces, but an offensive campaign is not allowed.

This model set forth by the War Powers Resolution could nevertheless be circumvented by Donald Trump. “He can also let the 60-day deadline pass without asking anything from Congress,” notes Marie-Christine Bonzom. Similar to his predecessors,
**Barack Obama argued during his first term that such law violates the prerogatives of the U.S. president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, implicitly suggesting that the text was unconstitutional. This is an argument Donald Trump could revisit. In his veto of a similar resolution adopted by both chambers in 2019 to halt American military engagement in the Yemeni civil war, he described the measure as “pointless” because, like in this case, U.S. military personnel were not directly in enemy territory.

When it comes to Iran, Republican lawmakers currently “have no intention to introduce a bill, one way or the other,” as pointed out by Marie-Christine Bonzom. “They want to avoid taking an official stance on such a sensitive issue as an extremely unpopular war among two-thirds of Americans,” she adds, just six months away from the midterms, the midterm elections that could cost them their seats in Washington.

“It is most likely that the 60-day deadline will pass, with a de facto extension for Donald Trump, who would thereby bypass the obstacle,” she concludes. The impact on the American population remains to be seen – 60% of Americans currently approve of the strikes, according to a mid-April survey by Ipsos.