Drone Strikes and Pen Strokes: Congressional Legislative Trends on the War in the Gulf 

Since December, more than two dozen pieces of legislation have been introduced in Congress regarding the Gulf, with over 85 percent focused on the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. Lawmakers have sought to influence U.S. President Donald Trump’s handling of the war, though the White House has shown little willingness to defer to Capitol Hill on matters of military escalation and regional strategy.

While Iran dominated headlines between December 2025 and May 2026, Congress’s broader Gulf agenda underscored that Washington’s regional concerns extend far beyond Tehran. For many lawmakers, the crisis reinforced a longstanding view that partnerships with Gulf states remain central to U.S. energy security, military basing, and strategic competition with China and Russia. Increasingly, the Gulf is viewed in Washington as a theater of great-power competition, where Beijing’s economic presence and Moscow’s energy leverage now shape American calculations as much as traditional security threats. Consequently, congressional debates surrounding the war with Iran increasingly reflected broader concerns about the Gulf’s role in U.S. regional strategy and global competition. 

“War” Powers

When discussing the ongoing conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, many Americans refer to the confrontation as a “war.” Yet whether the conflict legally or politically constitutes a formal war remains disputed among scholars and the media, and incumbent politicians have only added to the confusion. Since hostilities began on February 28, Congress has deliberately avoided using language or taking actions that would formally characterize the conflict as a war, even though U.S. President Donald Trump has not been as discreet. 

Congressional responses to the conflict have been ideologically varied. Many proposals focus on enhancing sanctions on Iran and issuing strongly worded condemnations of the Iranian government. Others concentrate more heavily on limiting the president’s ability to expand military operations without congressional approval. One resolution, proposed and subsequently voted down more than four times, sought to invoke the War Powers Act of 1973 in an effort to limit presidential authority over the conflict. The measure argued that Congress must authorize continued military involvement within 60 days of deploying U.S. forces abroad. For U.S. troops in Iran, that deadline was May 1. The resolution’s repeated failure underscores how difficult it is for Congress to reclaim war-making authority from the executive branch once military operations are already underway. 

Even Republican lawmakers remain divided on whether the United States is formally engaged in a war. In March, in an effort to undermine renewed calls to invoke the War Powers Act, Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson argued that the United States was “not at war,” describing the conflict instead as a “critical mission.” Trump, on the other hand, has repeatedly referred to the conflict as a war, at one point telling CBS News that he “thinks the war is very complete.” At the same time, Trump has acknowledged the legal distinction between a “war” and a “military operation,” noting that he has been advised not frame the situation as a war because he is “supposed to get approval” first. 

With Republican infighting and Democratic legislative failure, public opinion has also become increasingly fragmented. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in March found that a narrow majority (54 percent) of Americans believe that the conflict with Iran will last at least another six months, while polling from the beginning of May showed that a majority (62 percent) of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the conflict. Under the War Powers Resolution, the president must withdraw U.S. forces within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes continued military involvement or formally declares war. As a result, even if many Americans do not yet view the conflict as a formal war, growing expectations of a prolonged confrontation may increasingly shift public perceptions in that direction. 

For Democrats, invoking the War Powers Resolution has become one of the few, if not the only, available legislative mechanisms to challenge the expanding military campaign conducted without congressional consensus. If Congress formally invokes the War Powers Resolution, Trump could legally obtain a 30-day presidential extension, but that window is finite. As the conflict continues, the White House will likely face growing pressure either to secure clearer congressional authorization for the military campaign or to scale back U.S. involvement. 

Party-by-Party Trends

Beyond the debate over presidential war powers, legislative responses to Iran have exposed a stark partisan divide over what the conflict represents. Many Republicans frame military pressure, sanctions, and support for Israeli operations as necessary tools to confront a state sponsor of terrorism and restore deterrence. Democrats, by contrast, focus on process, accountability, and the risks of another open-ended Middle East war launched without clear authorization or defined objectives. In some cases, members of both parties have pushed further, introducing articles of impeachment and invoking the 25th Amendment following presidential threats and unilateral escalation. 

Congress was even further divided by the constitutional and political implications of direct conflict with Iran. Republicans have largely emphasized the domestic consequences of instability in the Gulf, particularly rising oil prices, economic disruptions, and threats to national security. Several Republican lawmakers also took prominent roles in advancing legislation aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran. Representative Michael Lawler introduced the Iran Human Rights, Internet Freedom, and Accountability Act of 2026 and the Enhanced Iran Sanctions Act of 2025. Senator John Cornyn introduced a resolution “expressing the sense of the Senate in support of the recent United States and Israeli military strikes on Iran,” while Representative Brian Mast, traditionally one of the strongest supporters of the U.S.-Israel partnership, introduced legislation reaffirming Iran’s status as the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Democrats, meanwhile, sought to limit what they perceived as executive and military overreach in the Gulf. Legislation introduced by progressive lawmakers has increasingly emphasized human rights concerns in the Gulf, including efforts to condemn the Islamic Republic’s suppression of protests and restrictions on freedom of assembly. However, following the start of Operation Epic Fury, Democratic legislative priorities shifted toward questions of constitutional authority and procedural legitimacy, with lawmakers advancing repeated War Powers challenges while some members escalated their opposition through impeachment legislation. 

Several Democratic members voiced concerns that the current military presence in Iran is “unconstitutional” following President Trump’s threats against Irani on social media. Senators Adam Schiff, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, and Tammy Baldwin repeatedly introduced joint resolutions invoking the War Powers Resolution to garner public attention on the issue. Similar measures were later backed by other Democratic lawmakers—including Senators Tim Kaine, Jeff Merkley, Andy Kim, Raphael Warnock, Chris Van Hollen, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Mark Kelly. 

Some lawmakers, however, have diverged from their parties’ broader political agendas. Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego, who has a reputation for supporting American-Israeli cooperation, introduced a resolution calling for federal personnel overseas to remain focused on their primary missions. This measure goes further in its support for U.S. military operations than most Democratic-sponsored resolutions. Senator Rand Paul, a Libertarian with a history of opposing intervention in the Middle East, became the only Republican to co-sponsor the Senate’s first resolution calling for the direct removal of United States Armed Forces from Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. The divergence of Gallego and Paul from their respective parties underscores the absence of a stable bipartisan consensus on U.S. presence in Iran and highlights the growing tensions surrounding the administration’s regional strategy. 

As the fragile ceasefire holds, the Trump administration’s approach to Iran will likely prompt additional resolutions and foreign policy legislation in Congress. If the ceasefire collapses and hostilities intensify, congressional debates over sanctions, military authorization, and executive authority could increasingly converge. In that scenario, both the House and the Senate may face growing pressure to reassert their authority under the War Powers Resolution and demand clearer authorization for continued U.S. military involvement. 

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gulf International Forum.