Trump administration claims war in Iran ‘terminated’ before deadline

The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April – an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.

The statement furthers an argument laid out by US defence secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the US senate earlier on Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war.

Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.

A senior administration official said for the purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday February 28 have terminated”.

The official said the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began on April 7.

While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran’s oil tankers from getting out to sea.

Under the War Powers Resolution, the US law that sought to constrain a president’s military powers, American president Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorisation or cease fighting.

The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.

Democrats have pushed the administration for formal approval of the Iran war, and the 60-day mark would likely have been a turning point for a swathe of Republican legislators who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.

“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said senator Susan Collins, who voted on Thursday in favour of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress had not given its approval.

She added that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close”.

Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Mr Trump’s first term, said he has recommended to administration officials that they simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called Epic Passage, a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.

That new mission, he said, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation”.

“That to me solves it all,” added Mr Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.

During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Mr Hegseth said it was the administration’s “understanding” that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire.

Senator Tim Kaine, who had asked Mr Hegseth about the timeline, later told reporters that the defence secretary “advanced a very novel argument that I’ve never heard before” and “certainly has no legal support”.

Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Centre’s Liberty and National Security Programme and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law.

“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.

Other presidents have argued that the military action they have taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Mr Trump’s war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ms Ebright said, adding that legislators need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.