(Scypre.com) – As tensions between Israel and Iran escalate into open conflict, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution that would prohibit the United States from engaging militarily in the war without explicit congressional approval. The move marks a rare moment of cross-party agreement, with progressive Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Rashida Tlaib joining libertarian-leaning Republicans in an effort to reassert congressional authority over declarations of war. Massie stated plainly on social media, “This is not our war. Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution,” and he called for fellow lawmakers to join him in co-sponsoring the bill.
The proposed resolution draws on the 1973 War Powers Act, which was designed to limit the president’s ability to wage war without legislative oversight. Massie’s draft would explicitly block the use of U.S. military forces, airstrikes, or other operational support in the Israel-Iran conflict unless Congress formally authorizes such action. His effort has been mirrored in the Senate, where lawmakers like Bernie Sanders and Tim Kaine have put forward similar measures, including one that would ban funding for any military operations against Iran unless first approved by both chambers.
Reactions to the resolution have been sharp and divided. While many Democrats and some non-interventionist Republicans applaud the move as a necessary constitutional check, others—particularly among defense hawks—warn it could embolden Iran and tie the president’s hands during a volatile global crisis. Representative Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) sharply criticized the resolution, calling its supporters naive and suggesting that failing to confront Iran now could lead to a broader regional war or even global conflict. On the other hand, supporters like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) argue that Congress must not surrender its role in decisions that lead to war, especially after decades of military engagements without clear legislative backing.
The backdrop of this legislative action is a rapidly deteriorating situation in the Middle East. More than 200 Iranians and over 20 Israelis have been killed in a series of retaliatory airstrikes, and the conflict has damaged U.S. diplomatic buildings in Tel Aviv. The Pentagon has moved to deploy aircraft carriers and missile defense systems to the region, claiming these are for defensive use only. Meanwhile, President Trump returned early from the G7 summit in Canada to oversee the U.S. response from the Situation Room, saying he is aiming not just for a cease-fire, but a “real end” to the conflict.
This resolution is likely to test both the limits of executive power and the appetite for war among the American public. Surveys show continued public reluctance to engage in another protracted Middle Eastern conflict, a sentiment that Massie and others are tapping into. But the path forward for the resolution is uncertain. While it is expected to be introduced as a privileged measure that must come to a vote, it still faces resistance from many Republicans and may spark an executive-legislative showdown if the White House chooses to ignore it.
In a political landscape often defined by gridlock and polarization, the Massie resolution stands out as a striking example of bipartisan cooperation—united not by shared ideology, but by a common commitment to congressional war powers. As lawmakers debate the merits and dangers of intervention, the deeper question remains: Should the president alone decide when the U.S. goes to war, or should the people’s representatives be required to give their consent? The answer may shape not only America’s role in this war, but its posture in the world for years to come.