The History Behind U.S. Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Facilities – War Powers & Presidential Authority
On June 22nd, 2025, the United States carried out airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. This was an unprecedented escalation in an already tense Middle East. What stood out wasn’t just the targets, but the process: the decision being made swiftly and without formal congressional approval. This single move by President Donald Trump has reignited a debate that dates back centuries: When it comes to war, who really calls the shots?
President Donald Trump, acting as Commander-in-Chief, argues that the strikes were necessary to protect Israel and prevent Iran from creating and possessing nuclear weapons. Critics, on the other hand, view this as another example of executive overreach and stretching the limits of constitutional authority, particularly given the current president's fair share of policy and character disapproval groups.
Why is Iran’s nuclear program such a big deal? The U.S. opposes Iran obtaining nuclear weapons because it could destabilize the Middle East and threaten U.S. allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran also signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, which legally agreed that Iran won’t develop nuclear weapons. U.S. leaders fear that if Iran broke this commitment, it could create an arms race in the region, increasing tension and risk of nuclear conflict. This conflict isn’t just another flashpoint in the region; it is a test for the United States’ leadership, foreign policy, and balance of power, especially regarding some of our founding documents, such as the United States Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution splits authority over war between Congress and the President. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war, raise and support armies, and regulate their use. Article II, Section 2, makes the President Commander-in-Chief, responsible for directing the military once it’s deployed. The founders did this on purpose. They wanted to ensure that no single person could alone drag the country into war. As President James Madison once wrote, “The executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it.”
Despite this framework, presidents have repeatedly used military force without a formal declaration of war. In 1950, President Harry S. Truman commanded U.S. forces into Korea following a U.N. meeting without seeking congressional approval. Throughout the 1960s, Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon escalated U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia similarly, bypassing Congress entirely. In response to a series of such unilateral actions, especially during the Vietnam era, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to ensure both Congressional and Presidential opinions and approval are collected before sending United States Armed Forces to a foreign land.
The recent airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities bring this constitutional tension to light once again. If presidents can bypass Congress, what does that mean for the checks and balances that the U.S. founding fathers intended? On one hand, crises don’t wait for legislative calendars to be free. By the time Congress debates and reaches a decision, it may be too late to act. However, it may not always be about speed, but the impact of power. Opposing views argue that if presidents can unilaterally enact significant military actions, Congress’s constitutional role in matters of war becomes meaningless. If Iraq in 2003 taught the U.S. anything, it was that rushing decisions with or without congressional approval can have devastating consequences.
The 2003 Invasion of Iraq serves as a prime example of the consequences of rushed military action. Congress did authorize the use of military force through the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (AUMF), citing Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, the following investigations revealed that the intelligence used to justify the invasion was flawed. Notably, the defector known as “Curveball” admitted to fabricating stories about Iraq’s WMD programs, which the Bush administration later used to support the case for the war. Years of bloodshed, regional instability, and declining trust in the government followed.
Following the 2025 United States airstrikes on the three Iranian nuclear facilities, President Trump deemed the mission “A spectacular military success.” The operation was one of the most complex, long-range strike missions ever conducted by the United States. Seven B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri under complete radio silence. They had to refuel multiple times midair, and flew a route carefully calculated to avoid detection by both Russian and Iranian radar systems. Their targets, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, are among Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facilities, buried deep underground and reinforced with layers of concrete designed to withstand traditional strikes.
To add to the complexity of this mission, while seven B-2 Stealth Bombers went east to Iran, numerous more were sent west across the Pacific Ocean to act as decoy flights, drawing attention away from the Middle East and causing uncertainty within the Iranian defense systems. Combining deception, strategy, and technology, the United States ensured the bombers reached their targets without alerting Iranian forces in time to complete an effective attack.
A total of 14 “bunker-buster” bombs known as MOPs (Massive Ordnance Penetrators) were dropped on the facilities along with more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles sent from U.S. submarines. The MOPs weighed around 30,000 lbs each and were never used in combat. They were designed and expected to be able to tunnel 200 feet into the ground, which is perfect for the underground bases. More than 125 aircraft were used in this mission–as a direct attacker, a decoy, a refueler, and more. President Trump followed this with a call for peace, instructing Iran to move towards peace, finally, or else the United States may pursue other targets with “speed” and “precision”.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, took President Donald Trump's demands as offensive and feels the United States wants Iran to be obedient to them. Khamenei even defended the usage of anti-American slogans around Iran and even inside their parliament, where lawmakers shouted “Death to America!” In Tehran, Iran, officials condemned the attack as an act of war and vowed retaliation. U.S. allies in Europe expressed alarm over the risk of escalation, urging restraint and renewing diplomacy.
With global tension rising, an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting was held on June 22nd, 2025. Russia and China condemned the U.S. strikes, with China’s U.N. Ambassador, Fu Cong, stating, “Peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved by the use of force. Dialogue and negotiation are the fundamental ways out at present.” Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia referred to the attack’s logic as a “Fairy Tale,” questioning why to believe the United States after a similar occurrence took place in Iraq 22 years prior.
Back in Washington, reactions were just as sharp and split. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies also condemned the strikes, deeming them unconstitutional and adding, “We’ve seen no evidence to date that an offensive strike of this nature was justified under the War Powers Act or the Constitution.” House Speaker Mike Johnson also added his thoughts through reporter conversations, saying how “The president warned them not to retaliate, but he was also very clear that the threat of Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a threat not just to Israel and the Middle East, but to the United States as well.” Johnson added how Iran has made their dislike towards the United States clear, defending President Trump's decision of imminent danger as the Commander-in-Chief.
It is imperative to weigh all possible outcomes for such an unprecedented escalation. This event goes beyond direct conflict and could reshape U.S. relationships with allies and rivals. With European partners pressuring both sides to engage more diplomatically, it could create regional instability and weaken our relations with European countries. Meanwhile, countries such as Russia and China, allies of Iran, could use this attack to advance their own influence in the Middle East, portraying the United States as unpredictable, unilateral in its executive power, and overall dangerous. This could lead to the acceleration in weapon production, especially for Iran, as they could simply continue their production of nuclear weapons in a more secure area with far more protection, going beyond the United States' detection.
From a legal standpoint, the strikes raise questions about executive power. Was there imminent danger for the United States that justifies the decision of the President? The president acted decisively in response to the threat to national security and the protection of the United States' allies. Alternatively, bypassing Congress in this scenario undermines the constitutional framework supposedly ensured in the Constitution and through the War Powers Resolution. Ethically, the strikes highlight the tension between national security imperatives and international peace. The operation did minimize civilian casualties and harm while completing tactical objectives; however, it also challenged ideas of military proportionality. This action will have long-term consequences, especially for regional stability and global trust.
The outcome may have achieved immediate objectives, but at what cost? The timeless truth is clear: decisive action carries consequences that extend far beyond the battlefield, shaping not only national security but also the credibility and moral standing of the United States in the eyes of the world. Ultimately, the question remains for global leaders and citizens alike – how far can power be exercised responsibly before the costs outweigh the gains?
References
[1] Martinez, Luis, Tom Liddy, and David Brennan. “Trump Says US Hits 3 Iranian Nuclear Sites, Plunging America into Conflict.” ABC News, June 22, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-hits-3-iranian-nuclear-sites-trump-plunging/story?id=123081409.
[2] “Iran and the NPT.” The Iran Primer, January 28, 2020. https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2020/jan/22/iran-and-npt.
[3] “US Enters the Korean Conflict.” National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed September 5, 2025. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict#:~:text=Truman%27s%20statement%20also%20reflected%20a,wishes%20of%20the%20United%20Nations.
[4] Lindsay, James M. “TWE Remembers: Truman’s Decision to Intervene in Korea.” Council on Foreign Relations, June 27, 2020. https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-remembers-trumans-decision-intervene-korea.
[5] “War Powers.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed September 5, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/war_powers.
[6] Brandon-Smith, Heather. “The 2002 Iraq AUMF: What It Is and Why Congress Should Repeal It.” Friends Committee On National Legislation, February 14, 2023. https://www.fcnl.org/updates/2023-02/2002-iraq-aumf-what-it-and-why-congress-should-repeal-it.
[7] “Iraqi Defector ‘curveball’ Janabi Denies WMD Claims.” BBC News, February 16, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12478238.
[8] Wire, Sarah D., and Erin Mansfield. “What Did Trump Say in Speech after US Strikes on Iran?” USA Today, June 22, 2025. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/21/donald-trump-us-bombs-iran-speech-transcript/84304350007/.
[9] Reyes, Ronny. “Ayatollah Khamenei Says Iran Will Never Bow to US over Nuclear Standoff: ‘Issue Is Unsolvable.’” MSN, August 8, 2025. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ayatollah-khamenei-says-iran-will-never-bow-to-us-over-nuclear-standoff-issue-is-unsolvable/ar-AA1L7U2z?ocid=BingNewsSer
[10] “UN Security Council Meets on Iran as Russia, China Push for a Ceasefire.” CNBC, June 22, 2025. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/22/un-security-council-meets-on-iran-as-russia-china-push-for-a-ceasefire.html?msockid=118f191b73966658192d0cf072426743.
[11] Khan, Mariam, and Alexandra Hutzler. “Trump Faces Bipartisan Pushback to Iran Strike as Some Question His War Powers.” ABC News, June 23, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-faces-uphill-battle-challenge-trump-war-powers/story?id=123116301.
Participants:
Written by Alan Mowle
Edited by Rafael Escalante and Marilyn Jaya
