Lisa Murkowski discovers hot water. Read more: trump discovers governing Read more: trump resurrects dead The Republican senator from Alaska is now busy drafting a formal authorization for the use of military force against Iran, supposedly to "establish parameters" for military operations. Her motive? The Trump administration "has sidelined Congress," according to the New York Times.
Touching. Really touching.
Here we have an elected official who suddenly realizes that the American executive conducts military operations without asking permission from the legislature. As if this were news. As if Congress hadn't spent the last twenty-five years looking the other way while Bush, Obama, Trump's first term, then Biden transformed the presidency into a military monarchy.
Selective Amnesia on Capitol Hill
After all, where was Murkowski when Obama bombed Libya without parliamentary authorization in 2011? Where was she when Trump liquidated Soleimani in 2020? Where were all these scrupulous guardians of the Constitution when it came time to vote on pharaonic military budgets without ever questioning their use?
The truth is that the American Congress has voluntarily abdicated its war powers for decades. First out of political cowardice: it's more comfortable to let the president make difficult decisions and applaud if it works, criticize if it fails. Then out of electoral calculation: why risk your reelection on a war vote when you can settle for indignant press releases?
The Authorization for Use of Military Force voted after September 11, 2001 — that blank check Congress signed in the heat of emotion — has served as legal pretext for all subsequent presidents to justify just about any intervention. From Afghanistan to Yemen, from Somalia to Syria, this catch-all authorization has allowed them to avoid democratic debate on each new war.
Theater of Resistance
Today, Murkowski is playing the resistant. She wants to "regain control." But her initiative looks more like political theater than genuine will for change. First because it comes after the battle: tensions with Iran don't date from yesterday, and if she really wanted to frame military action, she could have done so earlier.
Second because an authorization for the use of force, even "framed," remains a blank check. The parameters she intends to set will necessarily be vague — they always are. How do you precisely define the "imminent threats" that would justify a strike? How do you geographically delimit an intervention? How do you measure the "proportionality" of a response?
These questions aren't technical, they're political. And it's precisely to avoid answering them publicly that Congress has preferred to delegate its responsibilities to the executive.
Iran, Convenient Pretext
Speaking of Iran. Here's a country that serves as the perfect bogeyman to justify all excesses. Authoritarian regime, nuclear program, support for regional militias: Iran checks all the boxes of the ideal "villain." But geopolitical reality is infinitely more complex than this caricature.
Iran is also a country of 85 million inhabitants, a large portion of whom aspire to more freedoms. A country that respected the 2015 nuclear agreement until Trump unilaterally denounced it. A country that, despite its glaring flaws, remains a rational actor on the international stage — contrary to what bellicose rhetoric suggests.
Authorizing the use of force against Iran, even with "parameters," means opening Pandora's box of a regional conflict with unpredictable consequences. It means risking setting the entire Middle East ablaze to satisfy the fantasies of a few Washington hawks.
The Real Problem
The fundamental problem isn't that Trump "sidelines Congress." The problem is that the American system of checks and balances has gradually deteriorated, with the active complicity of the legislature. Congress has renounced its budgetary prerogatives (government by continuing resolutions), its war prerogatives (delegation to the executive), its oversight prerogatives (partisan investigation committees).
Murkowski's initiative will change nothing about this institutional drift. At best, it will give facade parliamentary legitimacy to decisions that will continue to be made in the secrecy of presidential offices. At worst, it will facilitate military escalation by giving it a democratic veneer.
The real question isn't how to better frame the use of force. It's why, in 2026, the United States continues to consider war a normal foreign policy tool. But that question, Murkowski prefers not to ask herself. It's less marketable in Alaska.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is Lisa Murkowski's recent initiative regarding military force?
Lisa Murkowski is drafting a formal authorization for the use of military force against Iran to "establish parameters" for military operations, citing that the Trump administration has sidelined Congress in military decisions.
Q: How has Congress historically handled military operations?
Congress has largely abdicated its war powers over the past twenty-five years, allowing presidents to conduct military operations without seeking legislative approval, often due to political cowardice and electoral calculations.
Q: What is the significance of the Authorization for Use of Military Force from 2001?
The Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed after September 11, 2001, has been used by subsequent presidents as a legal basis for various military interventions, effectively bypassing the need for democratic debate on new conflicts.