War Without Congress

The president launched “major combat operations” from Mar-a-Lago. The Constitution says that power belongs to Congress.

This weekend, while many Americans were trying to understand what had just happened, the sheep were listening carefully.

The United States and Israel launched what the administration called “Operation Epic Fury,” a major military assault on Iran. Early reports indicated that Israel targeted senior Iranian officials while U.S. forces struck military installations. Iranian state media reported that at least 200 people were killed, including 118 students at a girls’ school, and more than 700 wounded. Iran retaliated quickly, launching strikes against Israel, killing a handful of people and injuring more than 100, and firing on U.S. bases across Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Within hours, President Donald J. Trump, speaking from Mar-a-Lago in Florida, announced in an eight-minute video that the United States had begun “major combat operations in Iran.” He acknowledged that “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost,” adding that “that often happens in war,” but described the mission as “noble” and necessary for the future.

The sheep noticed the vagueness.

The president described decades of tension with Iran, reaching back to 1979, and asserted that the goal was to prevent the country’s “murderous regime” from becoming a nuclear-armed power. He did not mention that in June 2025, his administration had already struck Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, after which he insisted those sites were “completely obliterated.” Nor did he explain how Iran posed an imminent threat requiring immediate action.

Indeed, U.S. intelligence officers reportedly assessed that Iran was unlikely to pose a threat to the U.S. mainland for at least ten years. The International Atomic Energy Agency has stated it sees no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program, and the Defense Intelligence Agency has suggested that even if Iran sought to build an intercontinental ballistic missile, it would take at least a decade.

The sheep have learned to pay attention when urgency outruns evidence.

In his remarks, the president did not mention the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama that limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump withdrew the United States from that agreement in 2018. Within a year, Iran began ignoring its limits.

Instead, the president framed Iran as irredeemably hostile, saying that negotiations had been attempted repeatedly and that Iran “just wanted to practice evil.”

Then, hours after releasing his prepared video, the president told reporters that his true objective was regime change. “All I want is freedom for the people,” he said. In social media posts, he announced that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been killed in the strikes, a claim later confirmed by Iran. He told Iranian military and police forces to lay down their weapons and accept “complete immunity,” or “face certain death.” He urged the Iranian people to remain inside while bombs fell, then “take over your government.”

The sheep noticed the absence of detail.

Immunity from whom? By what process? Under whose authority? These questions went unanswered. The administration appears unconcerned that regime change rarely unfolds through inspirational social media posts, particularly when the regime in question has violently suppressed protest in the recent past.

Meanwhile, the president declared that heavy bombing would continue “as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD.”

The sheep recognize the old inversion: war as peace.

Support for the attack, polling suggests, stands at roughly one-third of Americans, with nearly half opposed. Historically, support for military action is highest at the outset of a conflict. These numbers are strikingly low.

The president did not seek authorization from Congress before launching what he himself calls a war.

That fact troubles the sheep most deeply.

The Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. The framers, having fought a king they viewed as tyrannical, were explicit that the executive should not hold unilateral authority to initiate military conflict. One delegate at the Constitutional Convention remarked that he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.”

Congress is currently in recess. Democratic lawmakers are calling for an immediate return to Washington to debate and vote on whether military action against Iran should continue. Senator Andy Kim described the moment as an effort to “normalize war without Congress,” and to normalize the idea that a president can act alone in foreign policy.

The sheep see a pattern.

Since returning to office, the president has expanded the scope of what he calls national security. Tariffs have been framed as security measures. Deportations have been framed as security measures. Domestic political disputes have been reframed as threats to the nation. When everything becomes national security, almost any action can be justified as urgent.

War, in that framework, becomes simply another tool of executive authority.

There are other questions hovering in the air.

The president’s approval ratings have fallen sharply. Before his recent State of the Union address, approval stood at 37%, with 59% disapproving. Only 30% of Americans believe he is focused on issues that matter to them.

At the same time, his name has resurfaced repeatedly in connection with the Epstein files, and reports have emerged about allegations the Department of Justice allegedly withheld. Social media users have already dubbed the Iran strike “Operation Epstein Fury,” suggesting it serves as distraction.

The sheep cannot prove motive, but history teaches that leaders facing political peril sometimes turn outward, seeking unity through conflict.

There are also financial entanglements to consider. Gulf Arab states opposed to Iran have offered significant business opportunities to companies associated with the president and his family. Jared Kushner and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff maintain deep financial ties in the region. Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly made multiple private calls advocating for a U.S. strike, even while publicly supporting diplomacy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long urged U.S. military action against Iran.

The sheep understand alliances. They also understand incentives.

The United Nations charter prohibits member states from attacking other nations except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. In an emergency meeting, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urged immediate de-escalation.

The sheep return, again and again, to the constitutional question.

The requirement that Congress authorize war is not procedural trivia. It forces the executive to persuade the legislature and, by extension, the public. It compels debate and ensures that Americans consciously accept the cost—in money, in lives, in moral standing.

By acting alone, the president sidestepped that obligation.

The sheep believe that when a president launches a war without Congress, in the absence of clear evidence of imminent threat, amid declining political support and personal scandal, it raises a grave question about the health of the republic.

This is not only about Iran but about whether the separation of powers still functions. It is about whether the American people retain the right to decide when they will send their sons and daughters into danger.

The sheep do not underestimate Iran’s regime, nor do they romanticize geopolitics. But they insist that the Constitution matters precisely when fear and fury run high.

The president’s assault on Iran may prove to be a foreign war. It may also prove to be something else: a domestic turning point.

When a leader assumes the powers of war alone, dismissing Congress and ignoring public opposition, he is not only challenging another nation. He is testing the boundaries of American democracy itself.

The sheep are watching very closely.