Challenge Trump! U.S. Senate to vote on war powers resolution Wednesday, plans to halt military action against Iran

The US Congress is advancing a bipartisan war powers resolution, attempting to reclaim final authorization for military actions against Iran, with the vote becoming a key indicator of support for the war within Washington and increasing market uncertainty regarding the direction of the conflict.

According to a Reuters report on March 4, the US Senate will begin voting on the resolution on Wednesday, and the House is expected to vote on Thursday. The resolution aims to halt military actions against Iran and requires that any hostile action against Iran must be authorized by Congress.

However, the Republican Party holds a slim majority in both chambers and has repeatedly blocked efforts to limit Trump's war powers. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday he believes there are enough votes to defeat the resolution and warned that restricting the President’s ability to complete the mission could put US troops in greater danger.

Even if the Senate passes it, the resolution must also pass in the House,and it would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to come into effect after the anticipated Trump veto, meaning its immediate binding power over military action is limited. For investors, however, it will directly affect expectations regarding the conflict’s duration, escalation risk, and the strength of policy constraints.

Resolution’s Direction and Legal Leverage: Requires Congressional Authorization and Paves the Way for “Operation Termination”

The core of the resolution is to require all hostile actions against Iran to be authorized by Congress through the war powers mechanism and to legislatively promote stopping current military action.

Reuters cited relevant explanations stating that the 1973 War Powers Resolution provided a framework to limit the President’s unilateral military actions; the President may involve the military in armed conflict only if Congress declares war, grants specific authorization, or to respond to an attack against US territory or armed forces.

More importantly, the War Powers Resolution requires unauthorized military operations to be terminated within 60 days unless an extension is granted.

This means that even if the vote this week cannot immediately change battlefield dynamics, Congressional votes and subsequent legislative actions may still become variables affecting the duration and policy trajectory of actions, and the market will adjust its assessment of the conflict’s “controllability” accordingly.

Probability of Passage and Market Implications: Unlikely to Change the Situation in the Short Term, but Heightens Expectations of Political Constraints on Trump

Practical thresholds mean the resolution is more likely to serve as a “signal” rather than immediately generate rigid constraints.

Republicans hold a slim majority in both chambers. After confidential briefings by senior officials, Mike Johnson stated he believes the House has enough votes to defeat the resolution, warning that if Congress tells the Commander-in-Chief he cannot complete the task, it may be “very dangerous” and could encourage Iranian forces to act.

Even if the Senate passes it, the resolution still needs House approval, and after an expected Trump veto, a two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to overturn the veto.

Based on this structure, investors are more likely to view the vote as an indicator of two things: first, whether Congress’s tolerance for war is declining; and second, whether the Trump administration will adjust the scope, duration, and communication of its actions due to political pressure.

Intensity and Tempo of the Conflict: US Military Claims “Ahead of Schedule,” Trump Says It May Last Over Five Weeks

Currently, the US and Israel’s war against Iran has entered its fifth day with an expanded scope of conflict, causing damage to Iran, Israel, and many regions in the Middle East, and has resulted in the first American casualties. US forces have joined the strikes on Iran, attacking over 1,000 targets and causing the deaths of several senior Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Khamenei.

US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper stated US actions against Iran are “ahead of schedule.” Trump said the operation may last five weeks or longer, and warned that more American casualties are likely.

For markets, these statements reinforce expectations that the conflict is not a short-term “limited operation,” and whether Congress can impose constraints takes on greater pricing significance.

Spillover of Legitimacy Disputes: Constitutional Boundaries and International Law Costs Increase Geopolitical Policy Uncertainty

Reuters quoted legal experts as saying the current strikes against Iran are testing the limits of Trump’s constitutional powers. The US Constitution stipulates the President commands the military and leads foreign affairs, but the power to declare war belongs to Congress.

Although past presidents have launched military strikes without Congressional approval, such actions usually have less intensity, duration, and scope than a “war,” whereas Trump may be pushing these boundaries.

At the level of international law, legal experts say many countries may consider these strikes lack legitimacy under the UN Charter, as they are neither Security Council-authorized nor a response to an actual armed attack.

Reuters reports that the UK and Spain have restricted the use of their bases for the strikes due to lack of proper justification. Even though the US has veto power at the Security Council, legal experts argue violating international law still carries costs. Such external constraints and changes in allied attitudes will further affect investor assessments of conflict spillover risks and sustainability of actions.

Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market carries risks, and investments must be made cautiously. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account individual users’ unique investment objectives, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suited to their particular circumstances. Investment based on this is at one’s own risk.