Trump's legal 60 days for war with Iran have expired. What does this mean?

Congressmen from the Democratic Party may file a lawsuit against US President Donald Trump if the operation in Iran lasts longer than the 60 days stipulated by law — the deadline expires on May 1. If the lawsuit is successful, the Democrats can achieve restrictions on military action or strict control over the actions of the president and even impeachment. What are the chances of such an outcome — in the material of Izvestia.

What can Congress do?

• Democratic senators immediately stated that the war with Iran was launched illegally, without congressional approval, and is being conducted without proper parliamentary oversight, but their attempts to initiate proceedings did not pass the voting stage in the House of Representatives due to Republican resistance. According to the 1973 War Powers Act, the President of the United States must not only consult with Congress before the outbreak of hostilities, but also hold regular meetings with it until the conflict ends. The president has only 60 days to conduct a military operation to eliminate the immediate threat to the United States without parliamentary approval. In the event of a conflict with Iran, they expire on May 1.

• Now that the consequences of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have affected ordinary Americans, representatives of the Republican Party have questioned the expediency of military action, which increases the chances of filing a lawsuit. So far, attempts to condemn Trump's war in Iran have been symbolic, because it is not easy to bring such a lawsuit through a vote. Congressmen will have a better chance of success if the lawsuit is filed not from a group of Democrats, but from one of the chambers or from the entire congress. Moreover, even a bicameral decision can be vetoed by the President of the United States, and to overcome it, it will require two-thirds of the votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Talking about the Middle East: Russia is ready to help the United States and Iran break the deadlock

Moscow's experience is in demand, but the settlement is still in limbo.

• In addition to legal proceedings, Democrats are considering other ways to influence Trump's military actions in Iran. In particular, Congress may block the annual defense bill and the allocation of funds for the next fiscal year. It will take time to make a court decision, but such steps and the threat of a lawsuit can also be effective levers of influence on the US president.

What can Trump do?

• The law allows the President of the United States to request an extension of a military operation by 30 days. But in this case, Trump will need written confirmation to Congress that the continuation of the war is an "unavoidable military necessity." At the same time, even the fact that Iran posed an immediate threat to the United States at the time of the outbreak of the conflict raises questions among congressmen. No information has been received from the Trump administration about the intention to request permission from Congress, and there is no time to consider it.

• Trump can also claim that the two-month deadline was reset after the ceasefire was announced on April 8. There have already been precedents in US history: in 2011, the administration of US President Barack Obama argued that it did not need coordination to launch strikes on Libya, since the operation did not reach the level of combat operations and did not involve US ground troops. On the same basis, in 1999, the administration of US President Bill Clinton continued bombing Kosovo, despite exceeding the 60-day deadline.

Trump is conducting large-scale purges in the security forces. What does this mean?

• Trump can wait for a vote on the next resolution on the military powers of the US president, hoping that Republicans will support the continuation of the war. In fact, the law does not imply any real sanctions for the lack of coordination of military actions with Congress and can only serve as a reason to limit powers. But even if the right to file a lawsuit is not supported by a parliamentary vote, the president can get out of this situation with virtually no consequences.

History of the law's application

• The U.S. Constitution, adopted back in 1787, contained provisions that delimited powers in the matter of warfare. The country's founders believed that the president was the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and was responsible for conducting military operations, with the right to repel attacks on the United States. However, the right to declare war against another State belongs to Congress. The President can veto a congressional decision to declare war, but it can be overridden by a qualified majority.

• In practice, the opposite happened more often — the president started fighting without the approval of lawmakers, after which conflicts arose between the two branches of government, which had to be resolved by the judicial system. In the 1930s, there was a campaign to pass a law that provided for a referendum on declaring war if the United States was not attacked first, but this proposal was never adopted.

The conflict between the United States and Iran has changed the modern concept of war. Analysis

• Disputes between the president and Congress reached their peak during the Vietnam War. At that time, American troops were fighting not only inside that country, but also in Cambodia and Laos, which provoked opposition from lawmakers. As a result, in 1973, a law was passed that prohibits troops that the president has sent abroad from staying there for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. They are given an additional 30 days to return. The President must also provide an explanation to Congress within 48 hours of sending troops.

• Since 1975, the President of the United States has had to explain his decision to send troops abroad 132 times. In most cases, it was about humanitarian missions, the release of hostages, the evacuation of US citizens, or the deployment of military advisers, but sometimes it also involved actual combat operations, after which Congress recalled the need to return troops within 60 days or still gave its permission for their use.

The first real dispute arose in 1999 during the bombing of Kosovo under President Bill Clinton. They lasted longer than the permitted 60-day period, but then the White House said that since Congress had approved the financing of the operation, it allowed it to be carried out. Some lawmakers then objected that there was no official permission. The dispute was settled after Clinton completed the operation before the end of the additional 30-day period.

• The next time the president was required to comply with the law was in 2011. At that time, Barack Obama approved military intervention in Libya without seeking congressional approval. When the 60-day deadline came to an end, he announced that the leadership of the operation in Libya had been transferred to NATO, and the United States was only participating in the operation to a limited extent. The House of Representatives disagreed with this interpretation and voted to condemn Obama's actions. Although this step had no practical significance and did not oblige the president to withdraw troops, it undermined Obama's position in Congress, as 45 of his Democratic party members immediately supported the condemnation.

• Later, Congress repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the White House used American troops against Syria, Yemen, Iran, Niger, and Venezuela. Various legislators have put resolutions to the vote demanding an end to hostilities and the withdrawal of troops. However, either other deputies did not support them, or one of the chambers of Congress opposed them, or the president vetoed them, after which there were not enough votes to overcome it. There were no real cases when the president, under pressure from Congress, withdrew troops at the right time.

What does this mean?

• Despite the fact that the term of the special powers of the US president to conduct a military operation is expiring, the chances of ending the conflict by early May are slim. Iran insists on defending its position, and the United States does not yet have a clear strategy to resolve the conflict. The logic of military action suggests that the United States will have to continue forceful pressure on Iran in order to achieve a peaceful settlement, since now the country poses an even greater threat to the United States than before the conflict began, due to the rise of revanchist sentiments. This is understood in Congress, and not only by Republicans, but also by Democrats, so the initiative to sue Trump may not pass a bicameral vote.