\n<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 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.<\/p>\n
The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier 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.<\/p>\n
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration’s position, said for purposes of that law, \u201cthe hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb. 28 have terminated.\u201d The official said the U.S. military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.<\/p>\n
While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran’s oil tankers from getting out to sea.<\/p>\n
Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president\u2019s military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorization or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.<\/p>\n
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 swath of Republican lawmakers who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,\u201d said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who voted Thursday in favor of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress hadn\u2019t given its approval. She added that \u201cfurther military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close.”<\/p>\n
Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during 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 \u201cEpic Passage,\u201d a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.<\/p>\n
That new mission, he said, \u201cwould inherently be a mission of self-defense focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat to me solves it all,\u201d added Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.<\/p>\n
During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth said it was the administration\u2019s \u201cunderstanding\u201d that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who had asked Hegseth about the timeline, later told reporters that the defense secretary \u201cadvanced a very novel argument that I’ve never heard before\u201d and \u201ccertainly has no legal support.\u201d<\/p>\n
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center\u2019s Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a \u201csizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship\u201d related to the 1973 law.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo 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,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Other presidents have argued that the military action they\u2019ve taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Trump\u2019s war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ebright said, adding that lawmakers need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.<\/p>\n
___<\/p>\n
AP writer Aamer Madhani contributed to this report.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n