Is the Iran war really over? In a May 1 letter to Congress, President Donald Trump claimed that “The hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated.” The letter was an attempt to comply with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which limits armed military engagements to a timeframe of 60 days without explicit congressional approval. However, the ongoing American blockade and the Iranian regime’s refusal to reach an acceptable agreement raise the question: is the war really over, or is this merely a lull in the fighting?

“On March 2, 2026, I reported to the Congress that on February 28, 2026, United States Forces had initiated Operation Epic Fury and begun conducting precision strikes against the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Trump wrote. He said both the March 2 letter and the May 1 letter were “part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148).”

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution on November 7, 1973 amid increasing popular opposition to the Vietnam War, which was secretly begun and expanded, without congressional approval, by first the Johnson administration, then the Nixon administration. In the midst of the Watergate scandal (1972-1974), Congress was in a rare mood to restrain presidential power.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of the opening of any hostilities, which Trump did in his March 2 letter.

The resolution then stipulates, “Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted … the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted … unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.”

However, the War Powers Resolution reserves to Congress a sort of veto power over foreign military operations. Even if U.S. forces are engaged in foreign hostilities within a 60-day timeframe, “such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”

Trump’s May 1 letter comes 60 calendar days after the March 2 report. “On April 7, 2026, I ordered a 2-week ceasefire,” Trump explained. “The ceasefire has since been extended. There has been no exchange of fire between United States Forces and Iran since April 7, 2026. The hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated.”

The message to Congress is not subtle: the Iran problem is under control; the conflict is over; there is no need for Congress to pass a resolution rebuking the Trump administration’s Iran operation.

Yet the letter proceeds to sound a much less confident note. “Despite the success of United States operations against the Iranian regime and continued efforts to secure a lasting peace, the threat posed by Iran to the United States and our Armed Forces remains significant,” Trump admitted. “Accordingly, the Department of War continues to update its force posture in the AoR in select countries, as necessary and appropriate, to address Iranian and Iranian proxy forces’ threats and to protect the United States and its allies and partners.”

Unfriendly critics may view this as an admission that operations failed to achieve success against Iran. But such a conclusion seems unwarranted given the near-destruction of Iran’s military capabilities.

A more likely possibility is that this statement leaves President Trump an escape hatch, a way to reenter hostilities with Iran if circumstances call for it. Such a possibility is crucial to deterrence, because Iran would have no reason to either negotiate or refrain from striking American military assets if they believe Trump would be prevented from responding.

Indeed, the challenge the Trump administration faces is how to bring its intractable adversary to heel without violating the 60-day deadline. In a recent hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth floated an unlikely solution. “We are in a ceasefire right now,” and “our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.”

Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) shot back, “I do not believe the statute would support that.” On this occasion, it would seem that Kaine was able to read the statute rightly, for the phrase “within sixty calendar days” does not suggest that the clock “stops” when a ceasefire is called, as if a football team were calling a time-out.

Another possible option to play for time, for which the War Powers Resolution provides, is that Trump could extend the 60-day deadline for an additional 30 days if he presented a case to Congress for why further military action was needed.

However, by describing the conflict as “terminated,” President Trump ruled out this option. This seems to be a wise decision. If the Iranian strategy was to run out the clock, then extending the deadline from 60 days to 90 days would simply push the problem down the road, with little else to show for it. By attempting to separate the ongoing standoff and peace negotiations from that deadline, Trump is trying to undercut Iran’s entire strategy.

What remains to be seen is whether Congress is persuaded by Trump’s declaration that hostilities have been “terminated.” While the U.S. and Iran may not have exchanged fire directly since April 7, the U.S. continues to hold Iran in a state of siege by blockading its maritime commerce in the Gulf of Oman.

Acting Pentagon Press Secretary Joel Valdez recently confirmed that the blockade is “operating with full force and delivering the decisive impact we intended. We are inflicting a devastating blow to the Iranian regime’s ability to fund terrorism and regional destabilization. Our armed forces in the region will continue to maintain this unrelenting pressure.”

Since April 13, the U.S. military has redirected 40 vessels trying to pass through the blockade and seized two ships that refused to comply with their orders. An estimated 31 Iranian tankers carrying oil worth at least $4.8 billion are believed to be trapped by the blockade.

A naval blockade has long been understood as an act of war, even when no shots are fired. When the nascent Kennedy administration asked the U.S. Department of Justice for an opinion on the legality of conducting a blockade of Cuba, Assistant Attorney General Robert Kramer replied on January 25, 1961, “a blockade is a belligerent act which, as a matter of international law, is ordinarily justified only if a state of war, legal or de facto, exists.”

One danger for President Trump is that Congress may choose to curtail his ability to conduct combat operations against Iran, which would dramatically undercut his ability to obtain a favorable deal. Thus far, Democrats have forced six votes on a war powers resolution in the Senate and two votes in the House. Each vote has failed, largely upon party lines.

However, when the Senate voted on April 30 for the sixth time, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted against the measure, the first sign of defection from the GOP that could signal more to come. “As I have said since these hostilities began, the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief is not without limits,” Collins argued. “The Constitution gives Congress an essential role in decisions of war and peace, and the War Powers Act establishes a clear 60-day deadline for Congress to either authorize or end U.S. involvement in foreign hostilities. That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement.”

Indeed, the whole purpose of the War Powers Resolution, the constitutionality of which is itself in question, was “to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities.”

The other danger for President Trump is that the Iranian regime successfully stalls for time until some inflection point relieves them from the current level of pressure. This could be another global crisis, a change in the attitude of Congress, or a Democratic victory in the midterm elections, which would change the composition of Congress.

The latest reports on negotiations are that the regime has submitted yet another peace proposal through Pakistani mediators, but Trump is still “not happy.” The president has insisted that Iran renounce its quest to obtain nuclear weapons and surrender its current stockpile of enriched uranium, but Iran has refused to budge on that all-important point. “They’ve got to come up with the right deal,” Trump insisted. “At this moment, I’m not satisfied with what they’re offering.”

The latest reports also indicate that Iran is using the ceasefire to dig out missiles, drones, and other weapons buried under rubble, as well as its nuclear stockpiles. Then on Sunday, multiple cargo ships near the Strait of Hormuz reported attacks by “unknown projectiles” and small boats, likely from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Trump responded by announcing “Project Freedom,” which would involve U.S. naval assets keeping the strait open for merchant shipping.

Such a move may trigger an escalatory Iranian response. This brings us back to the opening question: is the Iran war really over?