IRAN WARAmerica’s Post-Deliberative Wars
Over the last eight weeks of war with Iran, America’s two deliberative institutions, Congress and the media, have largely abandoned their duty to sustain public debate on the most important question a republic can face—the choice between war and peace. The Iran War may thus be the first genuinely “post-deliberative” war in American history.
Over the last eight weeks of war with Iran, America’s two deliberative institutions, Congress and the media, have largely abandoned their duty to sustain public debate on the most important question a republic can face—the choice between war and peace. Neither institution performed perfectly during the Global War on Terror. Yet on Capitol Hill there was debate before the initiation of hostilities, and the media made considerable efforts to manufacture consent. By today’s standard, these activities seem almost admirable. The Iran War may be the first genuinely “post-deliberative” war in American history.
To see the difference, we need to think back more than twenty years. While deeply flawed and perhaps rushed, there was nevertheless a debate on Capitol Hill about U.S. military action in Afghanistan and then the invasion of Iraq. The first was directly precipitated by a direct attack, 9/11. The second was preceded by roughly two months of Congressional hearings followed by a vote for an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The AUMF authorizing the war in Iraq passed the Senate by a vote of 77–23 and 296–133 in the House. Those debates and votes have since been widely judged as mistakes—but they occurred.
There was no comparable congressional deliberation on the eve of the president’s unilateral launch of the Iran War. Despite the administration’s prior uses of force in Venezuela and against Iran in June 2025, Capitol Hill showed little appetite for a sustained debate before hostilities began. As American forces were built up in the Middle East, there were no serious efforts to compel a vote in Congress. The most Congress has managed is to act after the fact, through failed war powers resolutions—half-hearted attempts to get proverbial horses back into the barn. Capturing the almost uniform sentiment of congressional Republicans, Rep. Blake Moore said of the vote that it would be “irresponsible to tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief and our military leaders.” In the upside-down world of Washington, shirking one’s constitutional duties is recast as responsibility.
