Congress Changes; Trump Keeps the War Powers

The United States and Israel attacked Iran on February 28, and President Donald Trump will retain authority over military decisions until the new Congress takes office on January 3. Democrats won both chambers in the Nov. 3 midterm elections, with candidates opposing the war scoring notable victories. The ballots changed who controls Congress. They didn’t immediately change who commands the military.

Trump acknowledged the conflict contributed to Republican losses, then defended joining Israel in the attack. “I think a part of it was Iran... Iran was a piece of it,” he told The Wall Street Journal. In that interview, he added: “I did the right thing. I would have done it again.”

A vote, not a veto

The war has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran declared closed, and pushed up global oil and gas prices. The United States imposed a naval blockade on Iran, putting further pressure on its economy. Rising petrol and other goods became a focus of Democratic campaign messaging about the cost of living. Ordinary people felt the consequences in prices; the power to make military decisions remained concentrated in the presidency.

Trump offered a different account of what voters were telling him. On Fox News, he said, “I don't think it's the war. I think it's a gasoline price,” and claimed people agreed with his Iran policy but weren’t willing to pay more for fuel. He told Politico his decision was “for the long term good of our country and even the world” and “absolutely the correct one.” His own statements acknowledge the war’s role in the election while insisting the attack was right.

The incoming lawmakers could investigate the administration, restrict appropriations and pass legislation addressing military operations. But Trump can veto restrictive legislation, and overriding a veto requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers. “Even if Democrats hold a majority in both houses, their influence will be limited to the legislative and political tools of Congress,” former national security adviser John Bolton told Deutsche Welle.

Senator Tim Kaine, who has repeatedly challenged Trump’s military operations without congressional authorization, said in August: “I'm going to keep doing all that I can to cut off funding for what will go down in history as one of America's most foolish foreign policy catastrophes of all time.” Senator Chris Coons and other Democrats have distinguished between replenishing US military stockpiles and financing operations that would extend the conflict. Political analyst Morad Veisi said restricting funding could become harder if Trump orders an offensive before January, because Democrats could inherit responsibility for supplying US troops already in combat.

The window before oversight

The incoming Congress doesn’t take office until January 3. Until then, Trump retains authority over military decisions, and analysts interviewed by Iran International said the election setback could strengthen his incentive to intensify operations before Democrats gain greater oversight powers.

“We can expect Trump to carry out a major military operation, perhaps even more intense than what he would have undertaken had he retained control of Congress,” international relations analyst Fereshteh Pezeshk told Iran International. She said Trump could seek to demonstrate his authority and influence media coverage after Republican losses. Pezeshk also said the incoming Congress might delay military funding or create other obstacles, but would have limited ability to restrain the president, who remains commander-in-chief.

Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, wrote on November 2 that the administration had been preparing a major new offensive before the midterms. She identified reopening the Strait of Hormuz and securing Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium as possible objectives. Slavin warned renewed attacks could expose US allies in the Persian Gulf to further Iranian retaliation, increase energy costs and cause extensive destruction without achieving Washington's goals.

Journalist and political analyst Omid Memarian said Trump could use the time before January to launch a concentrated operation, weaken Iran's military or nuclear capabilities, declare victory and then seek negotiations or reduce US involvement. “I think it may even have increased the likelihood of an attack,” he said. Memarian added that investigations, committee hearings and scrutiny of military decisions could make managing the war harder and increase Trump's incentive to seek a faster conclusion. He cited President George W. Bush increasing US troop deployments to Iraq in 2007 after Republicans lost the 2006 midterms, while noting that precedent doesn’t establish what Trump will do.

Tehran’s warning, Congress’s limits

Two senior Iranian sources told Reuters that Tehran was concerned Trump might try to compensate for the election loss with a military strike and remained on high alert. Mediators had intensified efforts to end the war amid concern it could reignite after the election. Trump declined on Tuesday to rule out resuming combat operations, and Iran was planning wider retaliation if fighting resumed.

Iranian officials welcomed the result. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf wrote on X, “Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message.” Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said US hostility would continue regardless of which party held power and warned against “even the slightest inclination towards submission” to the United States.

Democrats plan to investigate the war, summon officials to testify under oath about its costs and justification, and examine how it was planned and conducted. They’re expected to question Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth about the war's cost and the intelligence behind the decision to attack Iran, the number of missile interceptors remaining, protection for Gulf allies and Israel's role in persuading Trump to launch the war. Congressional scrutiny may expose decisions and costs. It doesn’t, by itself, take command of the military away from the president.