THE LONG ROAD TO WAR IN IRAN
HOW TRUMP'S ILLEGAL STRIKES TURNED DECADES OF BLUNDERS INTO BOMBS
Or: How We Love Regime Change (Again)
If you're experiencing déjà vu watching American warplanes strike Iranian targets in 2026, congratulations—you've been paying attention. The U.S.-Iran relationship has always been a geopolitical soap opera where the writers keep recycling the same plot: meddling, blowback, sanctions, threats, and eventually, bombs. The only thing that changes is which administration gets to sign the authorization forms—or in this case, doesn't.
President Trump's recent military strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities have reignited a firestorm not just in Tehran, but in Washington, where Democrats and constitutional scholars are asking an inconvenient question: Was any of this actually legal?
Spoiler alert: Probably not.
The AUMF Problem: Congress Takes a Permanent Vacation
Here's the thing about bombing another country: the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear that Congress is supposed to declare war. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, can respond to imminent threats, but launching offensive strikes against a nation we're not actively at war with? That requires congressional authorization.
Enter the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—or rather, the lack of one.
The 2001 AUMF, passed after 9/11, authorized force against those responsible for the attacks (al-Qaeda and the Taliban). The 2002 AUMF was specific to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Neither mentions Iran. And yet, for decades, presidents of both parties have stretched these authorizations like taffy to justify strikes in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and now—apparently—Iran.
Trump's strikes in 2026 have no AUMF backing them. None. Zip. Nada.
The Administration's Legal Gymnastics
The White House has offered a cocktail of justifications:
- Self-Defense: Citing Iranian proxy attacks on U.S. forces in the region (a classic chicken-and-egg problem—are we defending ourselves, or are they responding to our presence?).
- Imminent Threat: Claiming Iran was on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon (despite IAEA reports suggesting otherwise).
- Article II Powers: The old executive branch favorite—"the President has inherent authority to protect national security."
Legal scholars are unimpressed. "Imminent threat" has become the Swiss Army knife of presidential war powers—vague enough to justify almost anything, specific enough to sound legitimate on cable news.
Congress: The World's Most Expensive Peanut Gallery
You'd think Congress might have something to say about all this. After all, they're the ones with the constitutional power to declare war.
Instead, they've perfected the art of the strongly worded press release.
Democrats Raise Alarms (But Little Else)
Democratic lawmakers have been vocal about the legality issues:
- Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), a longtime advocate for reclaiming congressional war powers, called the strikes "unconstitutional and reckless."
- Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) tweeted that Trump's actions were "an illegal act of war" and demanded an emergency session.
- Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) warned that the strikes could lead to a "catastrophic regional war" without any democratic debate.
All valid points. But here's the kicker: Congress hasn't actually done anything about it.
No emergency vote. No attempt to invoke the War Powers Resolution to force a withdrawal. No defunding of military operations. Just... speeches.
Republicans: "Trust the President" (When It's Our President)
Meanwhile, Republicans have largely rallied around Trump, arguing that:
- Iran is a terrorist state that "deserves" to be hit.
- The strikes were a "measured response" to Iranian aggression.
- Questioning the President during military operations "emboldens our enemies."
(Notably, many of these same lawmakers were deeply concerned about executive overreach when President Obama launched strikes in Libya in 2011 without congressional approval. Funny how that works.)
How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of U.S.-Iran Catastrophes
To understand how we arrived at this moment—bombs falling, Congress shrugging, and Trump tweeting threats in ALL CAPS—we need to rewind through seven decades of American foreign policy blunders.
1953: The Original Sin
It all started with Operation Ajax, the CIA-orchestrated coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Why? He had the audacity to nationalize Iran's oil industry, which had been a British cash cow.
The U.S. and UK installed the Shah, a brutal autocrat whose secret police (SAVAK) tortured dissidents with techniques taught by the CIA. For 26 years, Iran was America's loyal Middle Eastern ally.
The Lesson Iranians Learned: Democracy is fine—until it threatens Western oil interests.
1979: The Revolution and the Hostage Crisis
Decades of resentment exploded in 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution toppled the Shah. Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy, taking 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The message was clear: No more 1953s.
Diplomatic relations were severed. Iran became the "Great Satan." The U.S. began a sanctions regime that continues to this day.
The 1980s: "The Enemy of My Enemy Is... Also Terrible"
When Iraq's Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, the U.S. provided intelligence and support to Iraq—yes, the same Saddam we'd later invade Iraq to depose. Meanwhile, in a spectacular display of Cold War logic, the Reagan administration also secretly sold weapons to Iran (the Iran-Contra scandal) to fund Nicaraguan rebels.
The Lesson: American foreign policy in the Middle East has always been a Choose Your Own Adventure book where every choice leads to disaster.
2002: The "Axis of Evil"
George W. Bush's 2002 State of the Union address lumped Iran with Iraq and North Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil." Shortly after, the U.S. discovered Iran had secret nuclear facilities.
Cue decades of sanctions, covert operations (including the Stuxnet cyberattack), and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.
2015: The Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)
After years of negotiations, the Obama administration brokered the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—a deal that limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
For a brief moment, it looked like diplomacy might actually work.
2018: Trump Tears It Up
Then came Trump 1.0. In 2018, he withdrew from the JCPOA, calling it "the worst deal ever." He reimposed sanctions under a "Maximum Pressure" campaign designed to force Iran back to the negotiating table.
Instead, Iran began violating the deal's limits, enriching uranium closer to weapons-grade levels.
2020: The Soleimani Strike
In January 2020, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top general. Iran retaliated with missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq. The two countries teetered on the brink of war.
2025-2026: Trump 2.0 and the Strikes
Fast-forward to Trump's second term. Despite tentative negotiations in Geneva and Muscat, tensions boiled over in mid-2025. Following a series of escalations—Iranian proxy attacks, U.S. military buildups, and failed diplomatic ultimatums—Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and military targets.
The Justification: Iran was "weeks away" from a bomb.
The Reality: The strikes have pushed Iran further from any deal, rallied domestic support around the regime, and brought the region closer to all-out war.
The Legality Question: Spoiler, It's Illegal
Let's be blunt: Trump's strikes are illegal under both U.S. and international law.
Domestic Law
- No AUMF: Congress has not authorized military force against Iran.
- War Powers Resolution: The 1973 law requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued action. Trump has notified Congress, but there's no authorization—and no sign he intends to withdraw.
- No Imminent Threat: The "imminent threat" justification is dubious at best. Iran has been "weeks away" from a bomb for about 20 years, depending on who you ask.
International Law
- UN Charter Article 2(4): Prohibits the use of force against another state except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The U.S. has neither.
- Preemptive vs. Preventive: International law allows preemptive strikes against imminent threats, but not preventive strikes against potential future threats. Trump's strikes fall into the latter category.
Why It Matters
Legality isn't just a technicality. It's the difference between a rules-based international order and a world where the powerful do whatever they want. It's also about democratic accountability—if the President can unilaterally start wars, what's Congress even for?
Israel's Role: The Unspoken Alliance
Let's not pretend the U.S. is acting alone. Israel has been pushing for military action against Iran for years, viewing Iran's nuclear program and regional influence as an existential threat.
Reports suggest that Israeli intelligence provided targeting data for the recent strikes. Israel has also conducted its own covert operations against Iran, including assassinations and sabotage.
The U.S.-Israel alliance on Iran is so tight that it's often hard to tell where one country's policy ends and the other's begins. Critics argue that Trump's strikes serve Israeli strategic interests as much as (or more than) American ones.
What Happens Next?
Here's the uncomfortable truth: We're now on a path where war with Iran is more likely than ever.
- Iran will retaliate, either directly or through proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, or Yemen.
- The U.S. will respond to those retaliations, citing self-defense.
- The cycle will escalate, with each side justifying its actions as defensive.
Meanwhile, Congress will hold hearings, issue statements, and do precisely nothing to stop it.
The Bitter Irony
The greatest irony of all? The 1953 coup—the event that started this whole mess—was recently acknowledged by the CIA as "undemocratic."
Seventy-three years later, we're still dealing with the consequences of that decision. We overthrew a democracy, installed a dictator, and now we're bombing the country that revolution created.
If there's a lesson here, it's this: Regime change has consequences. And those consequences don't expire.
Conclusion: The Road to War Is Paved with Good Intentions (and Bad Ones)
The road to war in Iran wasn't built overnight. It's the product of decades of coups, sanctions, broken deals, and mutual distrust. Trump's illegal strikes are just the latest milepost on a highway we've been traveling since 1953.
Congress could pump the brakes. They have the constitutional power to do so.
But they won't.
And so, we'll keep driving—toward a war that nobody wants, that serves no clear American interest, and that will cost untold lives and treasure.
But hey, at least we'll have strongly worded press releases.
Postscript: If you're wondering whether any of this will change under future administrations, remember: Obama negotiated the nuclear deal. Trump tore it up. Biden tried to revive it. Trump 2.0 bombed them instead.
The problem isn't just one president. It's a bipartisan failure of imagination, courage, and respect for the Constitution.
And until Congress reclaims its war powers, we'll keep repeating the same mistakes—just with different presidents signing off on them.