On the 28th of February 2026, Iranians woke up to US bombardment of their homeland. Some saw it as a ray of hope after the January massacre; others saw it as another unjustified US intervention in the region. In any case, missiles and drones have crossed the Persian Gulf for six months, oil tankers have burned, and a ceasefire has come and gone. And yet, in Washington, no one has declared war. Congress hasn’t voted to authorize it, nor has it voted to end it. So, is this actually a war? And if so, is it a legal one?

Only Congress has the power to formally declare war under the US Constitution, although it has not done so formally since World War Two. Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were all fought without one, some under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Iran does not even have an AUMF. A Senate resolution from Senator Tim Kaine notes that neither the 2001 nor the 2002 AUMF authorizes war against Iran. Supporters say it was lawful self-defense; not a new war but the continuation of an old conflict with Iran that dates back to the 1979 revolution. In either case, the real question is what a president can do without a declaration of war. Following the Vietnam War, Congress overrode Nixon’s veto and passed the War Powers Resolution (WPR). It requires the president to report to Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to hostilities and, unless approved, to withdraw within 60 days. The deadline for the end of hostilities in Iran expired on May 1st.

The administration claimed it had already complied: a May 1st letter to Congress stated that there had been no exchange of fire since the April 7 truce, implying that hostilities had stopped. Hegseth informed senators that during a ceasefire, the 60-day clock “pauses or stops”. Senator Tim Kaine bluntly replied to Hegseth during the hearing: “I do not believe the statute would support that”. Furthermore, other critics also reject that reading. Prof. Heather Brandon-Smith of Georgetown Law said the claim that hostilities had ended “does not match up to the evidence,” pointing to the ongoing U.S. blockade of Iranian ports as an act of hostility in itself; though the statute doesn't define “hostilities,” she noted the term was deliberately written to cover a broad range of conduct, and that even a ceasefire wouldn’t stop the clock because it isn’t a permanent end to the conflict.

Congress has not been silent. In June, the House voted for a resolution directing withdrawal 215-208; the Senate followed with its own 50-48 vote. Though being a non-binding resolution, it had no legal effect. The House passed another 214-208 in July, and a third received 220 votes a week later, with a record of seven Republicans joining Democrats. Although, the Senate fell short both times, falling 49-50 on September 24. Regardless, Donald Trump had ignored Congress. Declaring the ceasefire “over,” reinstating the blockade and resuming the bombing. Under the UN Charter, states are barred from use of force against one another except in the case of self-defense or with the authorization of the UN Security Council. The Secretary-General of the UN, Guterres, even condemned the opening strikes by the US. More than 100 international law experts have also written that the strikes clearly violated the UN Charter, as well as noting there was no evidence of an imminent threat. The Security Council hasn’t been able to resolve this matter. On March 11 it condemned Iran’s attacks on Gulf states 13-0, with China and Russia abstaining. A Russian draft urging all parties to halt military activity won only four votes, with the US and Latvia voting against.

So, is it a War? Yes. Declaring it a war or not does not stop the bombs. Seven months of strikes, a named operation, and a ceasefire and memorandum that both collapsed back into fighting leave little room for doubt. A declaration was never required to make that true, the U.S. has fought every major war since 1945 this way. The more difficult question is whether it’s lawful or not, and the evidence points in one direction. Congress never authorized it. After acknowledging that hostilities had started on February 28, the government claimed that a truce had quietly halted the WPR’s 60-day clock, a reading that had no legal foundation or precedent. It avoided the same deadline twice by treating the renewed strikes as a new war with a new clock instead of requesting authorization when the truce broke down. Meanwhile a bipartisan House majority voted twice to end the war. Add in the 100-plus international law scholars who found no factual basis for a self-defense claim under the UN Charter, and what's left is a war that keeps clearing every threshold that would mark it illegal and keeps being fought anyway.