The United States has a long history of launching foreign wars, but the logic that drives these interventions – and the harm they inevitably produce – deserves closer scrutiny. When insecurity can be artificially manufactured and war proceeds without democratic consent, the American people are left bearing the burden of decisions made in the service of political and economic interests rather than genuine national security.
The Flawed Procedure: How Presidents Bypass Congress
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, yet modern presidents have consistently circumvented this check on executive authority. The 1973 War Powers Act was intended to limit this drift, requiring the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and mandating withdrawal within 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued hostilities. But the act contains two critical loopholes: it allows the president to determine what counts as a “war,” and it provides two to three months of unilateral military action without congressional approval.
The 2026 U.S.-Iran conflict illustrates precisely how these constitutional tensions play out. When the Trump administration launched coordinated strikes with Israel on February 28, 2026, it did so without a congressional declaration of war or an Authorization for Use of Military Force. In response, House Democrats invoked the War Powers Act, ultimately passing a resolution to restrain the president by a vote of 215 to 208. Yet the resolution remained largely symbolic; the Senate must also act, and Republican majorities in both chambers have consistently rejected similar proposals. Michael O’Hanlon and Amy McGrath summarized the fundamental problem: “One person must not have exclusive decision-making authority over matters of war and peace for the United States of America, unless there is an imminent and acute threat to the United States that requires emergency action”. When that threat does not genuinely exist, the procedure becomes a fig leaf for executive overreach.
The Costs of Conflict: What Americans Have Paid and What They Think
The U.S.-Iran war has imposed staggering financial and human costs. By mid-2026, the Pentagon acknowledged that direct operational expenses had reached approximately $29 billion. However, as Harvard economist Linda Bilmes – who accurately forecast the $3 trillion cost of the Iraq War – has warned, the true long-term burden will be far higher. Bilmes estimates that once veterans’ healthcare, weapons replenishment, and interest on borrowed war funding are included, the total cost to American taxpayers will exceed $1 trillion. Already, the war is costing roughly $2 billion per day.
Beyond direct military spending, shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have pushed oil above $100 a barrel. Americans face much higher gas prices, which peaked above $5 a gallon. The latest Producer Price Index, tracking business input costs, showed a 6% surge from a year ago – 1.4% in April alone. Consumers are faring no better. The most recent Consumer Price Index showed consumer costs up 3.8% from a year ago, the fastest rise in three years, erasing workers’ inflation-adjusted wage gains over the past 12 months.
Public opinion has shifted dramatically as these costs have become apparent. Polls conducted before and after the outbreak of hostilities reveal a consistent pattern: Americans did not want this war, and many now resent its consequences. Early polls after the war began found a slim plurality opposed it: 48% to 43%. By May, disapproval surged to 58%, with only 38% supporting the war. Only 25% believed the Trump administration’s claim that Iran posed an imminent threat, and 56% said the administration should have sought congressional approval first.
By April, concerns widened. More than six in 10 Americans said Trump lacked a clear plan, and two-thirds said the war’s goals were unexplained. Majorities said the U.S. had failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, stop Iran’s nuclear programs, or secure freedom for Iranians. A Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey in early May found Americans see the war’s impact as negative for the U.S. cost of living (86%), international relations (72%), reputation (72%), and national security (65%). Majorities said the administration hadn’t consulted allies, limited casualties, or pursued negotiations. A plurality called the war stalemated. Few believed Iran would comply with a peace deal; 48% lacked confidence the U.S. would comply.
Hellbound and Down 