The 60-Day Clock That May Stop Trump's Iran War, And How He Could Ignore It

May 1, 2026. In Democrat offices and those of anti-Iran war protestors worldwide, there is likely a calendar with this date circled in red, maybe with an exclamation point for emphasis.

The US launched missile strikes on Iran - ostensibly to degrade its nuclear and ballistic missile programme, and effect regime change - Feb 28, leading to retaliatory strikes and a conflict that escalated sharply, dragging in other Gulf states and triggering a global energy crisis.

Since then, conservative estimates indicate over 5,000 deaths, including a large number of civilians and children, and over $50 billion in damage to energy infrastructure. And crude oil prices jumped past $110 a barrel, prompting fuel and gas prices to spike in the US and Europe, and panicked smaller Asian nations into lockdown-like scenarios.

The US' war on Iran has rumbled on since.

Except, it isn't legally a war. Not in the US, not till May 1.

The war that's not a war

Under the War Powers Resolution, also called the War Powers Act, an American president who has activated the armed forces without Congressional approval has 60 days to stand down.

A 30-day extension is allowed, but only if the president offers Congress a written guarantee that the extra time is to ensure the safe withdrawal of US troops and not continue fighting.

That deadline falls on May 1.

Technically the 60-day deadline is April 28, but since US President Donald Trump formally notified Congress of the strikes on March 2, the clock began ticking from that date.

Republican and Democrat lawmakers have both called May 1 an "inflection point".

Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said last month: "If he (Trump) believes the war is in our national interest, he must come to Congress and make the case." Meanwhile, Republicans have rallied behind Trump; House speaker Mike Johnson said putting limits on Trump's authority during a military conflict could weaken US interests.

Trump understands the situation; the normally brash and outspoken president has been remarkably cautious in his choice of words. In late-March he said: "I won't use the word 'war' because they say if you use it... that's maybe not a good thing..."

"They (i.e., the Congress) don't like the word 'war'... because you're supposed to get approval (to start a war) so I'll use the word 'military operation', which is really what it is," he said.

This suggests he believes Congressional authorisation is therefore not needed.

But Democrats appear intent on holding the president to account on this point; last month the Republicans beat back three measures to call off the fighting. A fourth was stopped last week.

For the most part voting (and canvassing) was along party lines, though Senator Rand Paul, the Republican from Kentucky, voted the other way. "I think after 60 days, there may be a few more Republicans [who] join me," he told the BBC.

War or no war?

If there is no peace before May 1, Trump must choose from two options.

Trump's Iran war options - get Congress to approve fighting or pull back troops. (File).

He can order the military to continue fighting - which violates the law and puts him under even greater pressure, with Democrats and rivals baying even more loudly for his head.

Or he can recall US forces from the Gulf, leaving Iran to claim actual and moral victory, though it is likely White House propaganda will then kick in to re-frame the retreat as a 'job well done'.

However, what is likely to happen is that Trump will seek an Authorisation for Use of Military Force, a law that came into force in September 2001, days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

If an AUMF is granted, it means Trump can continue US military ops without an end date.

Since 2001 this has been used to authorise a number of military actions, often puzzlingly beyond the original mandate - i.e., the use of "all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organisations, or persons responsible (for the 9/11 attack)".

A presidential habit?

To be fair, Trump isn't the first contemporary president to launch military action without Congressional approval. The argument then was that it was a timebound intervention. Then-National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said: "... the nature of our commitment is that we are not getting into an open-ended war, a land invasion in Libya."

Ground War On? US Rushes 57,000 Troops As Iran Crisis Escalates

So far, Trump has not put an explicit end-date to the fighting and has also refused to rule out a 'boots on the ground' scenario, particularly if he still wants to secure Iran's oil or secure its rumoured 440kg stockpile of enriched uranium.

The clock is ticking

If Trump does not secure Congressional approval before May 1, and refuses to pull back US troops, he needs an AUMF.

Without either of these, he will conducting an openly illegal war and even the Republicans might not be able to protect their man in such a case. The fighting in Iran has already been slammed as violative of international law.