Daily Herald opinion: The role of Congress: Nation’s lawmakers must step up to their constitutional duty to be decision makers on war

Congressional representatives rushing to criticize President Donald Trump as “authoritarian” for his decision to order attacks on Iranian nuclear installations would do well to realize that they largely have themselves — or at least their recent forebears — to blame for his ability, or that of any president, to do it.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly places the responsibility to declare war in the hands of Congress, reflecting the Founders’ concern that decisions as important as risking the blood of the nation’s young should involve the influence of the entire country, not the instincts, values or intuitions of a single person.

But for decades, Congress has steadily allowed its authority to engage the United States in foreign wars to erode. Trump’s decision this weekend is a logical extension of this political timidity. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling essentially exempting him from any personal accountability for whatever action he may take as president surely only deepens his sense that he can act on his own.

That is not to make a judgment about the merits of the president’s decision. If his announcement Monday that a ceasefire agreement has been reached between Iran and Israel proves true, that would indeed be a welcome development, and even discounting the strikes, there has long been cause to consider some sort of action to make Iran behave like a civilized country. One can have little love lost for acts that reduce the nation’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb.

Iran's open support of Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups and its specific declarations of intent to abolish the State of Israel alone raise legitimate concerns about how far Iran should be allowed to progress in its ability to make war. Countless actions over the past decades raise questions about how much Iran can be trusted.

So, considering Iran’s undisputed status as a volatile region’s foremost supporter of terrorism in combination with growing fears that it is nearing a nuclear capacity, almost anything that diminishes the country’s military power is a positive. But is it a net positive considering other factors, including the possibility, even likelihood, that rather than encourage negotiation, the U.S. attacks will steel Iran's resolve and bring the powerful U.S. adversaries of China and Russia into the fray?

Iran’s prompt response targeting U.S. forces in Qatar apparently did little harm. Was this an indication that the battered country will continue to do what it can to rally its friends and expand the war? Or, does it offer the specter of retaliation with an underlying message that the Iranians are willing to head back to the negotiating table?

Even with the prospect of a ceasefire, the situation is full of complicated questions for this conflict and future possibilities. If this action by the president proves meaningful, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have had more congressional involvement, nor that every future such decision by him or by some future president will have such a welcome result.

One thing is clear and overriding, though. Regardless of the merits of the U.S. attacks, they are a clear act of war on behalf of Israel. The Constitution makes Congress the decision maker on such a momentous decision, and if indeed the United States is to go to war, the absence of congressional investment in the decision deepens the political rifts that weaken popular support for the endeavor.

We have only just extricated ourselves from the longest war in U.S. history in Afghanistan — it at least authorized by congressional action if not officially declared — and the actions of this weekend certainly pose the possibility of sending us right back in to the instability of that region, now with the added complications of little to no allied support and considerable opposition from China and Russia.

These are significant considerations. They should not be left to the whims of any one person and his small circle of deferential “advisers.” In that context, critics are correct to worry about the appearance of authoritarianism in a decision to go to war. But, the existential message for the United States government is that it's really time that Congress — both parties and both chambers — step up and take back powers it has surrendered over the past few decades.

Initiatives have been started in the House and the Senate to begin the process of wresting that authority back where it belongs. Doing so is the only way we can have a legitimate and robust discussion about just what our nation's military role should be in this conflict and how much blood and treasure we are willing to contribute to it.