The recent insistence by the White House that the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran that began on February 28, 2026 has already been “terminated before the 60-day deadline”[1] raises more questions than it answers.
According to the Trump administration, this legal framing is not merely rhetorical; it serves a specific constitutional and political purpose. By declaring the campaign effectively concluded, the administration positions any subsequent military actions as falling outside the scope of a formally ongoing war. This interpretation, in turn, is used to argue that there is no requirement to return to Congress for renewed authorization under frameworks like the War Powers Resolution.[2]
To read this article in the following languages, click theTranslate Websitebutton below the author’s name.
Farsi, Hebrew, Русский, Español, Portugues, عربي, 中文,Français, Deutsch, Italiano, 日本語,한국어, Türkçe, Српски. And 40 more languages.
Such reasoning introduces a significant ambiguity between the legal status of the conflict and the operational reality on the ground. In principle, the war is over; in practice, however, military activities such as targeted strikes, intelligence operations, or logistical support could continue under alternative legal justifications, such as self-defense or existing authorizations.This creates a gray zone in which the executive branch maintains flexibility while avoiding the political and procedural hurdles of congressional debate.
This approach risks undermining the constitutional balance of powers by allowing the executive to unilaterally define when a war begins and ends, potentially bypassing legislative oversight altogether.[3] Supporters, on the other hand, may contend that such flexibility is necessary in modern conflict environments, where threats evolve rapidly and do not conform neatly to traditional declarations of war.
The situation reflects a broader tension in U.S. foreign policy: the challenge of reconciling legal frameworks designed for conventional wars with the fluid, often undeclared nature of contemporary military engagements.[4]
At first glance, this maneuver appears less like a clear conclusion to hostilities and more like a strategic reframing. By asserting that the conflict has formally ended, the Trump administration avoids not only the procedural demands of congressional oversight but also the domestic political friction that tends to accompany prolonged or ambiguous military engagements. Declaring an endpoint, however conceptual, can help shape public perception, signaling resolution and control rather than drift or stalemate.
This reframing also minimizes the optics of escalation. So long as the conflict is described as ongoing, any additional troop movements, airstrikes, or logistical commitments risk being interpreted as deepening involvement. By contrast, if the war is said to be over, similar actions can be recast as limited, defensive, or residual measures. The language used here becomes a tool of narrative management, allowing the administration to maintain operational latitude while projecting restraint.
More importantly, it provides what could be interpreted as an “exit with dignity.” In the absence of a decisive or clearly communicable victory, political leaders often seek ways to conclude a conflict without drawing attention to unresolved objectives or adverse outcomes. By declaring the campaign concluded in legal or symbolic terms, the administration creates space to disengage incrementally, without the need for a formal acknowledgment of setbacks on the battlefield or strategic miscalculations.
Source: Global Research
