Let’s state the obvious: We’re at war with Iran.
My evidence? Turn on your TV. U.S. forces, working with Israel, killed the supreme leader of Iran and many of his top aides. We sunk Iran’s navy and destroyed most of their air force. We bombed thousands of military sites across the region. President Trump, the commander in chief, has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran. He routinely refers to this as a “war.” Pete Hegseth, who calls himself the secretary of war, also describes this as a war daily, such as last week when he said, “We set the terms of this war.”
The truth that we are at war is so simple, only politicians and lawyers could make it seem complicated.
Indeed, a slew of Republican legislators insist we’re not actually at war. House Speaker Mike Johnson: “We’re not at war right now. We’re four days into a very specific, clear mission and operation.” Florida Rep. Brian Mast: “Nobody should classify this as war. It is combat operations.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham: “I don’t know if this is technically a war.” Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin: “This isn’t a war. We haven’t declared war.” Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna: “Strategic strikes are not war.”
Pearl Harbor was a strategic strike too.
Then there’s the claim that we’re not at war with Iran but Iran is at war with us. This is half true, insofar as Iran has been committing acts of war against the U.S. since it took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. But waging a war in response doesn’t make it any less of a war.
One is tempted to invoke George Orwell’s “1984,” in which the existence or nonexistence of war hinges on what the Ministry of Truth (or Truth Social) puts out on a given day. But nothing so literary is at play. This is (mostly) legalism run amok.
The main reason congressional Republicans reject the W-word is simple. If it’s merely a “combat operation” or “strategic strike” in response to an “imminent threat,” then the president has the authority to do it without congressional approval. If it’s a war, then it’s arguably illegal and unconstitutional within the framework of 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 anything.
This at least partly explains why Trump insists he had a “feeling” Iran was about to attack us. He has even suggested that Iran was just weeks away from having a nuclear weapon and that he prevented 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 Congress’ consent. It backfired. It says the president can respond militarily to threats as he deems necessary, but then must go to Congress within 60 days for approval to continue hostilities. The result: Presidents have a free hand to wage war for roughly two months, unless Congress stops them.
But congressional Republicans don’t want to stop Trump. That’s tactically defensible, if you believe this war was necessary. But the tactic forces Congress to say, in effect, “Don’t believe you’re lying eyes. This isn’t 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 riot of legalism only fuels confusion.
But there’s another factor driving the evasion. Trump made the idea of staying out of “forever wars” a central tenet of America First. There’s no textbook definition of “forever war” — always a ludicrous term — so you can understand why some people believed it was code for “Middle East war” or just plain war of any kind. The irony is that Trump could make a plausible case that this war is allowable under the Authorization to Use Military Force George W. Bush received in 2001. But symbolically that would mean Trump is continuing Bush’s “forever war.”
Regardless, Republicans aren’t just under a legal clock to get this thing over with, but a political one too. Polling shows that Americans, including many Republicans, have no thirst for a long 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 short and tidy.
The problem is that Iran knows this. Which is why they don’t have to win, they just have to ride out the bombings until the public or Trump loses patience with this very real war.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The U.S. and Israel are engaged in a war with Iran, as evidenced by military actions that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and top officials, destroyed Iran’s air force and navy, and bombed thousands of military sites across the region[1]. President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth routinely refer to the operation as a “war,” with Trump demanding “unconditional surrender” from Iran[1][2].
-
Republican lawmakers are avoiding the designation of “war” for legal and political reasons rather than factual ones. The distinction matters constitutionally because declaring war is Congress’s sole responsibility, yet by calling it a “combat operation” or “strategic strike,” the president can act without congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution[1].
-
Congressional Republicans are refusing 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 congressional consent, 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 appetite for prolonged conflicts. This creates incentive to mischaracterize the operation as limited and short-term, even as the scope and intensity of military operations continue[1].
-
Iran benefits from this rhetorical evasion because the country does not need to win militarily—it merely needs to outlast American public patience or Trump’s commitment to the campaign[1].
Different views on the topic
-
The operation represents a targeted 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 clearly defined, limited objectives focused on destroying Iran’s ability to project power rather than achieving regime change or territorial conquest. The stated mission centers 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 under existing legal frameworks, including the War Powers Resolution and the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force. The operation can be legally justified within these parameters without requiring a formal congressional declaration of war[3].
-
The rapid success of Operation Epic Fury—with Trump stating the military campaign is “very much complete” and that Iran has “nothing left” in military capability—suggests this is a focused military operation rather than the beginning of a prolonged conflict[2][3]. The condensed timeline and stated objectives support characterization as a bounded military operation rather than a full war.