UNBIASED - Special Report: Understanding the Conflict with Iran (PLUS a Listener Q&A)

Episode Date: March 16, 2026

The conflict between the United States and Iran has escalated over the past year, with the United States launching its most recent strikes against Iran on February 28th. In this episode of UNBIASED Politics, we walk through the full timeline of events leading up to the latest U.S. strikes, including the collapse of nuclear negotiations, the 2025 attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the renewed wave of strikes in early 2026. We also break down the bigger picture behind the conflict, including Iran’s nuclear program and the history of the 2015 nuclear deal, why preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons has bipartisan support in the U.S., how discussions of regime change fit into the broader strategy, and how the 1979 Iranian Revolution reshaped relations between the United States and Iran. Finally, we answer some of the biggest questions listeners have asked: What are the main arguments for and against U.S. involvement? How likely is regime change in Iran? Could these strikes be unconstitutional or illegal under international law? And what’s the difference between declaring war and what’s happening now? SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, March 16th, and we are taking a break from Unbiased University to talk about the ongoing conflict in Iran. I know this episode is obviously a couple weeks overdue, but as you all likely know at this point, if you've been tuning into Unbiased University, I have been on maternity leave since the end of February. So this was just really the soonest I could get around to putting out an episode. Now, obviously, the situation between the United States and Iran is constantly changing and evolving.

So just note that I have done my best to give you the most up-to-date information in this episode. But of course, you know, there's going to be certain facts and numbers and things that are bound to change as the days go on. So, yeah, without further ado, let's just kind of jump into today's episode, how we'll do this is this. We will start with a recap of what kind of triggered the February strikes. We'll do sort of like a history, if you will, give you a bunch of historical context. And then we'll talk about what's developed since those February strikes. And then towards the end of the episode, I'll answer a few of your questions that you submitted on Instagram. Okay, so as we know on February 28th, the United States, in coordination with Israel, launched strikes against Iran.

The strikes have mainly targeted nuclear facilities as well as some other energy facilities, military infrastructure, members of Iran's leadership, Iran's naval ships, things of that nature. The most recent report from the U.S. military said that the United States has hit more than 6,000 targets in Iran. And then I believe there was a separate report from the Israeli military that said Israel has hit more than 7,000 targets in Iran. But as far as the United States, what the United States military is saying is that more than 6,000 targets have been struck by American strikes. One of those American strikes did hit in Iranian elementary school. But we'll talk more about that particular strike a bit later in this episode because I know you guys had a lot of questions on that one. Now, there are a handful of reasons that the administration has cited for these strikes. So destroying Iran's missile capabilities, destroying Iran's navy, preventing Iran from developing

nuclear weapons, making sure the Iranian regime can't continue to arm or fund these terrorist groups and proxies that are outside of Iran's borders, and then also freedom for the Iranian people. But the one reason that I really want to focus on first is Iran's nuclear. program because that is a big one. And once we do that, we'll kind of talk about how that ties into some of these other reasons cited by the administration like regime change. What I'll say to start is that both sides of the aisle here in the United States, as well as leaders from various countries, do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. This is something that has bipartisan support. And that's That's why President Obama actually negotiated a deal back in 2015 with six other countries called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

And this agreement involved the United States, China, Russia, France, Germany, the UK, and the EU. And it was specifically intended to limit Iran's nuclear development. So under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to certain limits on its nuclear program, right? So this included a 97% reduction in its uranium. enrichment, a prohibition on pursuing nuclear weapons, and then limits on uranium enrichment for a period of about 10 to 15 years. And this was all in exchange for sanctions relief. However, roughly three years after that deal was signed, President Trump comes into office and he pulls out of the deal. So this was in 2018. He called the deal, quote, one of the worst and most one-sided

transactions the United States has ever entered into. And quote. And according to a White House fact sheet from Trump's first term, his decision to pull out was made for a couple of reasons. He felt that the deal failed to adequately protect America's national security interests and that the deal, quote, enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behavior while delaying its ability to pursue nuclear weapons and allowing it to preserve nuclear research and development. And quote. So, So Trump felt at the time and still feels that in addition to Iran agreeing to, you know, not develop a nuclear weapon, Iran should have also agreed to never having an intercontinental ballistic missile or a long range missile. Iran should have also had to agree to stop developing any nuclear capable missiles, stop proliferating ballistic missiles to others, stop its support for terrorists, extremists and regional proxies. end its quest to destroy Israel, stop its threats to freedom of navigation, specifically in the

Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, stop escalating conflicts in the Middle East and destabilizing the region by proliferating weapons to the Houthis and other militant groups, and its cyber attacks against the United States and its allies, stop its human rights abuses, and stop its unjust detention of foreigners, including United States citizens. Those are all things that Trump felt should have been included in the deal. So for all of those reasons, Trump pulled out of the deal and reimposed sanctions that targeted Iran's energy, oil and gas, and financial sectors. So Iran then goes back to, you know, just unrestricted uranium enrichment. Then in 2020, the United States kills Qasam Soleimani, a top Iranian general who led Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

And following that is when Iran said publicly that it would no longer be limiting its uranium enrichment. Now, it's very possible that Iran hadn't been limiting its uranium enrichment since 2018 when the United States pulled out of the deal. But after the killing of Soleimani, that is when they came out publicly and basically said, you know, we're not we're not limiting our uranium enrichment. We're going to do what we want. Also in 2020, Iran went ahead and built a new centrifuge production center that, was meant to replace a center that had been destroyed months earlier in an attack. And these centrifuge production centers, by the way, are facilities where the machines used to enrich uranium are actually built.

Okay. And around this same time, Iran actually passed a law that mandated uranium enrichment and the installation of advanced centrifuges at one of its nuclear facilities. So Iran was clearly, you know, taking more. steps to advance its nuclear program once Trump went ahead and pulled out of the deal and reimposed sanctions in 2018, but even more so in 2020 following the killing of Soleimani. So then when Biden takes office in 2021, he got the original signers of the JCPOA back together in an attempt to reach another deal. Nothing really came of this because both Iran and the

United States were adamant that each side kind of be the first to restart its obligations under the deal. So, you know, the United States wanted Iran to stop enriching its uranium first. Iran wanted the United States to lift its sanctions first. And because neither country wanted to be the first to act, the talks kind of just fell apart. Iran then ends up, then ends up electing a new president. And when talks did resume between the original signers of the JCPOA, Iran came to the table, you know, under this new, this new president with an even. more hard line stance than what it came with before. Now keep in mind, because there's no agreement in place at this point and because the United States and Iran can't seem to come to an agreement,

Iran is continuing to enrich its uranium during all of this while all of this is happening. So then in 2023, the war between Israel and Hamas breaks out. Hamas is backed by Iran. Israel is backed by the United States, okay? And I'm not going to get into the relations between Israel and Iran or Hamas and Iran or Israel and the United States because that could, of course, be, you know, three episodes alone. But for purposes of this episode, what you need to know is that because of that war that broke out in 2003, the United States never ended up finalizing negotiations while Biden was in office. Another notable thing happened in 2023, though. So the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is an international organization that sort

of keeps track of nuclear programs around the world, came out with this report that said there were trace uranium particles at Iran's main nuclear facility that had been enriched to 83.7%. Now, 90% is nuclear weapon status, okay? But there's also an important thing to make mention of here as well. That report from the IAEA specifically referenced trace particles. And even though it referenced only trace particles, this was still important because it showed that Iran's enraised. enrichment machines were capable of getting very close to weapons-grade uranium. And also, once uranium reaches about 60% enrichment, which Iran had already acknowledged producing, getting to 90% is technically a lot easier.

So because of this, when Trump took office in 2025, he went ahead and sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader, essentially demanding negotiations for a new nuclear deal. And in that letter, he basically said that the United States wanted to negotiate a new deal and that if Iran were to reject negotiations and continue moving forward with its nuclear program, there would be consequences. And he left this kind of vague. He didn't exactly say what those consequences would be. He just said, if you guys don't come to the table and work with us on this, there will be consequences. And that letter gave Iran 60 days to reach a deal. And the first round of negotiations took place on April 11, 2025, roughly one month.

month after that letter was sent to Iran's supreme leader. Once the first round of negotiations started on April 12th, that is when that 60 day clock started ticking. That meant that Iran had until June 11th, 2025 to make a deal. So the second round of talks happens a week later on April 19th, a third round happens on April 26th, a fourth round on May 11th, and a fifth round on May 23rd. After that fifth round of talks, Trump comes out and says that both sides were close to finalizing a deal. But at the same time, Iran said that Trump's desire to control Iran's nuclear activity was a quote unquote fantasy. So it wasn't really clear where things stood and keep in mind that at this point, Iran really only has about two weeks to reach a deal, right? So then on May 31st, the IAEA reports that Iran had

accumulated a record stockpile of enriched uranium up to about 60% purity. And the reason that this is significant was because this was a stockpile now, not simply trace particles, as was reported before. And I mentioned once uranium reaches about 60% enrichment, getting to weapons grade becomes a lot easier. So the IAEA reported that Iran had over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, that Iran was the only non-nuclear weapon state producing uranium at that level, and that if the uranium was enriched further to about 90%, it could theoretically be used to produce multiple nuclear weapons. In light of that report, when that 60-day period expired on June 11th, the United States starts evacuating its embassies in Iraq and other Arab states. And this isn't because,

you know, Iran had enriched uranium. This is because the United States was about to take some sort of action. Two days after that, on June 13th, Israel went ahead. and attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and leadership sites. One week after that on June 21st is when the United States officially got involved and dropped bombs on Iran's nuclear sites. So following those strikes, and we did a special report on Iran back then as well, this was June 2025. But following those strikes, Trump came out and basically said that those strikes had, quote,

completely and totally obliterated, end quote. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities. But then a few weeks later, a Pentagon report found that Iran's nuclear program was likely only set back by about two years because of our strikes. And things got kind of quiet, but now roughly seven months later, here we are. So what transpired between June of last year and February of this year that prompted these additional strikes? Well, for one, of course, the government reports that found that our prior strikes only set

Iran's nuclear program back by a couple years. The United States wanted to do much more damage than that. And then also after last year's strikes, there were there were reports indicating that Iran was continuing to enrich its uranium and continuing to expand parts of its nuclear program. So those developments are a major part of, you know, the explanation that the administration has given for the most recent strikes that were launched on February 28th. We're going to take a quick break here. When we come back, we'll talk about how regime change fits into all of this. And then we'll dive into what has developed since those initial strikes. Welcome back.

Before the break, we talked about Iran's nuclear program and the historical context surrounding the relations between the United States and Iran. But what I want to do now is I want to talk about how regime change fits into all of this. So I want you to keep in mind that there was a time when relations between the United States and Iran were not so contentious. back in, let's say, late 1950, so 1957, the United States actually launched a nuclear cooperation program with Iran. And this program was part of the Adams for Peace Initiative, which was this program where the United States was helping developing countries receive nuclear education and technology for civilian purposes, okay, like research and energy, not for nuclear weapons. And the thing is,

Back then, Iran was a very different place than what it is today. Prior to the Iranian revolution in 1979, Iran was ruled by a fairly Western friendly monarch, because the same was Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. And under the Shah, Iran was a very close ally of the United States and worked quite well with a lot of Western countries on various military, economic, and nuclear programs. And also during this time, life looked a lot different for many Iranians. Women could wear, the clothing they wanted. Women were encouraged to pursue higher education. There were reforms like the family protection laws that raised the minimum marriage age and gave women more legal rights. It was a much more liberal system than it is today. However, at the same time, there were also a lot of

people that opposed the Shah. A lot of historians and political scientists would say that the Shah was an authoritarian ruler, mainly because his government used a secret police force to suppress political opposition. And that dissatisfaction is what ultimately contributed to the 1979 revolution, along with various other factors. But after that revolution, Iran became a very different place, mainly because Iran began operating under an Islamic Republic with very different laws. So, you know, mandatory dress codes now require women to cover their hair, neck, arms, and legs while they're in public. The legal age to marry is now 13 years old, though there are situations where courts approve marriages, at even younger ages. And in certain legal context, a woman's testimony, you know, like a woman's

legal testimony in court, carries half the weight of a man's testimony. They're not treated equally. Homosexuality is a capital offense. You can be put to death for being a homosexual. So after the revolution, Iran rolled back a lot of the Shah era reforms and adopted this theocratic system of government, which is basically this system where religious laws have the ultimate political authority. And that's, of course, a lot different than the United States, for example, which has a secular government or a system that separates religion from the government. So the new Iranian leadership obviously became much more aligned with religious law, but it also started investing in its militant groups and proxies across the Middle East and calling for the

death of America and the death of Israel. Now, I also do want to note that the Iranian revolution, although I touched on it briefly, it could be a whole episode. in and of itself. It was an incredibly complex event. There were a lot of contributing factors. There was some foreign influence, including some from the United States, and some even argued that the United States' involvement in Iranian politics helped fuel the revolution. But what I'll say for purposes of today's episode is that the Iranian revolution fundamentally changed Iran's government and its relationship with the United States. And since then, the United States, as well as other Western countries, have become increasingly more concerned that.

Iran could use its nuclear program to eventually develop nuclear weapons. And because of that concern over the years, the United States and others have attempted to do what they can to avoid that, whether it be through sanctions, international inspections, diplomatic agreements, or as we're seeing now, military strikes. So that's how the two tie together, nuclear power and regime change, because as long as the current regime remains in power, it will likely continue pursuing nuclear capabilities in some way, right? The only real way to stop the nuclear program would be for a different government to come into power, a more Western-friendly government that's going to cooperate more with, say, the United States. And, you know, obviously that assumes that the new

government would choose not to pursue nuclear capabilities. On the topic of regime change, though, Trump did also mention that he hopes for freedom for the Iranian people, you know, by way of these strikes, which could also be a motivation for regime change in this situation. But I will say the United States is not going in to Iran for the sole purpose of replacing Iran's government with a new government solely for the benefit of the Iranian people. Okay. That's something that President Trump has said would be a benefit. And other politicians agree that that would be a benefit. But the main motivation here as far as regime change boils down to nuclear power and really curbing Iran's nuclear power and nuclear programs. Okay. So what I want to do now is talk about what has developed

since the first strikes were launched on February 28th. As of last Thursday, U.S. Central Command said that the military had struck 6,000 targets inside Iran since the strikes began. We mentioned that at the beginning of this episode. That is the most up-to-date number we have, though that number has certainly changed since it was released. And these strikes have targeted nuclear sites, missile sites, the Supreme Leader's compound. We know the Supreme Leader was killed. Sites within Iran's capital of Tehran, ships, other naval assets, certain palaces and mosques, rock shelters and caves, because we know that the leadership tends to hide out in rock shelters and caves. So those were also struck. And we know, of course, that an elementary school was struck and did kill at least

175 people, most of whom were children. And a lot of you had questions about this one. So let's go over what we know. what we know at this point is that the elementary school was hit around 1045 a.m. on February 28th, just after the school day had started. The strike destroyed at least half of the two-story building. And according to the Iranian Ministry of Education, there were 264 students present at the time of the strike. Most of those students present were girls between the ages of 7 and 12. And again, as I said, at least 175 people were killed in that strike. However, it is unclear exactly how many were students. As far as who's responsible for the strike, preliminary findings from an ongoing United States military investigation say that the United States is responsible.

That investigation found that the school was destroyed by an American Tomahawk cruise missile as the, quote, result of a targeting mistake, end quote. So apparently what happened is the school is located right next door to a naval base. that belongs to Iran's Revolutionary Guard. And actually, the school used to be part of the base, which is, I guess, where this targeting error stemmed from. But part of the controversy is that the satellite images show that since at least September 2016, the building, it appears to be a different building than what it was when it was part of the base.

So by the end of 2016, satellite images show that watch towers had been removed, three public entrances had been constructed, play area. like a sports field were painted on the asphalt, and then certain walls of the school were painted blue and pink once it became a school. So how does a mistake like this happen? Well, people who were briefed on this investigation apparently told the New York Times that, quote, officers at U.S. Central Command created the target coordinates for the strike using outdated data provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency. And quote, those individuals insinuated that the DIA should have updated its target coding, either with new satellite imagery or data from the

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency to differentiate the school building from the IRGC base. Instead, though, they, quote, labeled the school building as a military target, end quote, and then pass that information to Central Command. So that is what we know at this point. Again, that investigation is ongoing. so we're bound to find out more as that investigation continues, but that is what the preliminary findings state. Another thing worth mentioning is that in the last few days, and, you know, as we're on the topic of things that have developed, since those initial strikes at the end of February,

President Trump has lifted sanctions on certain Russian oil, and the IAEA has released a record number of emergency oil reserves. Why? Well, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, which is the main passage that ships have to move through to move oil from the Persian Gulf to the rest of the world, right? And roughly 20% of the world's oil supply passes through this straight. And outside of just oil, the straight of Hormuz is also a main route for liquefied natural gas exports from Qatar, which is one of the world's largest liquefied natural gas exporters. So the closure disrupts not only global oil markets, but also global natural gas markets, though it does affect global oil markets much more. And by the way, the reason Iran has control over this

strait is because Iran borders the northern side of the strait. So Iran has basically said that it will strike any ships moving through this straight and it'll also lay mines meant to, you know, blow up ships that move through the straight. So the straight is really, I would say, the main leverage point that Iran has. And then that's why they're utilizing it. Now, basic supply and demand tells us, that when supply goes down, but people still want that thing just as much, prices tend to go up, right? So if roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply can't reach global markets because of the closure of the strait, or I should say the effective closure of the straight, oil prices are going to rise. And that's why you might have already seen gas prices go up, though at this point, the rising gas prices

have more to do with futures and what we can expect in the months to come. But along those same lines, you might even see these prices go up more. in the coming weeks as we start to feel the actual real effects. So when we talk about President Trump lifting sanctions on certain Russian oil and the IA or the IEA releasing a record number of emergency oil reserves, both of these actions were taken to free up more oil across the globe and potentially mitigate an even larger rise in oil prices. So last Thursday, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson said that countries would be allowed to buy Russian oil that was already at sea as of March 12th until April 11th. And he referred to this move as a narrowly tailored short-term measure

and said it would not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government. To be very clear, this does not apply to new Russian oil exports. This just applies to oil that had already been loaded onto ships before March 12th. And, And the reason, I should clarify that the reason that these sanctions existed in the first place goes back to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. After that invasion, the Biden administration and U.S. allies imposed these sanctions on Russian oil exports in an effort to reduce Russia's revenue and therefore make it harder for Russia to fund the war.

Because of this, though, critics of this recent waiver that the United States issued are you that allowing the sale of this Russian oil will now indirectly enable Putin to continue the war against Ukraine and potentially even strengthen its efforts. Now, to give you some context on the scale here, there are about 120 million barrels of Russian oil currently being carried on ships around the world. At the same time, disruptions around the strait are preventing about 10 million barrels from reaching global markets every day. So in terms of scale, the amount of Russian oil that will now be available for purchase is equivalent to about 12 days of those disrupted oil flows in the strait. But then on top of that, the IEA or International Energy Agency

said it would make 400 million barrels of oil available from its members' emergency reserves. And this is double the number of barrels that the agency made available in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And again, this was a decision that the agency made to try to counter the effects of the conflict and to try to lower oil prices or keep them as low as possible, given this disruption in the straight. Okay, now what we're going to do is we're going to move on to the Q&A. So I had asked all of you on Instagram a few days ago, maybe a week, I don't know, I'm losing track of time at this point to submit any questions you had about the situation in Iran and I took some of those most frequently asked questions and I compiled them into a list and now I'm

going to go through and I'm going to answer them. So we'll start with the first question, which is what are the arguments for and against our involvement, meaning the United States is involvement? Why is the United States getting involved? What are the arguments on both sides of this? So we'll start with the arguments in favor of our involvement. First, obviously, preventing nuclear weapons, which we've talked about at length. The most common argument is that Iran could eventually develop nuclear weapons, right? And if they did, it would essentially destabilize the Middle East and pose serious risks for one of our biggest allies, which is, Israel. And so, you know, preventing that is is one of our main motivations for getting involved.

Another argument in favor of our involvement would be countering Iranian proxy groups, specifically Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, because Iran, you know, provides support for these groups. So by weakening Iran, we would indirectly be limiting the support for these, these proxies and militant groups. And then those who support United States involvement also argue that the United States needs to show countries like Iran that it's going to not just defend itself, but also answer to threats. And this way our adversaries know that they can't just threaten us without facing consequences. On the other side, those against our involvement would argue that by getting involved, we're violating international law and the UN charter by bombing a country over a potential threat

that might happen down the road rather than a definitive active threat. And we'll talk more about international law towards the end of this episode. But another argument against our involvement is that we're risking creating a bigger war, right? You know, if Iran's allies get involved, then obviously that could have massive effects, which it's not likely that, you know, countries like North Korea or China will get involved in this. But there's always the risk of creating a bigger war. A third argument against our involvement is that regardless of how big the war becomes, there's already been American casualties and there's bound to be more.

and it's just not worth it. And then finally, another argument against our involvement is the economic impact. And specifically, this impact on oil prices that we've been talking a lot about as well. Now, it goes without saying that this is not an exhaustive list of the arguments on either side of this fight, right? But I would say those are the main arguments on both sides. But of course, you could always come up with more. Okay.

What I want to do is I want to take our second and final break here. When we come back, we will continue with the Q&A. Welcome back. All right. let's move right along with the Q&A. The next question is how likely is regime change? This is a hard question to answer with any degree of certainty, but the general thought from a lot of the intelligence officials and analysts is that military strikes alone aren't

likely to cause regime change. In fact, a February National Intelligence Council report reportedly found that neither limited air strikes nor a bigger military campaign would be. likely to result in a new government taking over in Iran, even if the current leadership was killed as it was. And this finding was in part because there's no single opposition coalition that is ready to take over in Iran. And then of course, we also know that the Islamic regime has already installed the former Supreme Leader's son, Mujahabha Kamane, to take the former Supreme Leader's place. How effective this new leader will be remains to be seen because some reports out of

the United States have said that he's been severely wounded. Hegset said that he's likely been quote unquote disfigured. But this is just to say that with, you know, Kamani's son taking his place, regime change isn't likely just from these military strikes alone. Next question is how much has this cost? Well, as of last week, the Defense Department reportedly told Congress that the first six days of the conflict, keep in mind we're currently on day 16, cost $11.3 billion. According to the New York Times, that cost estimate appears to count only the operation's unbudgeted costs and doesn't include the costs of buildup of military hardware and personnel ahead of the first strikes. Other reporting also said that the 11.3 billion number did not include any estimate of repairing facilities or replacing losses. And again, that estimate is only for the first six days of this conflict.

we are currently on day 16. Were these strikes constitutional? Isn't the president required to get congressional approval? And can he face consequences for striking Iran without congressional approval? The answer to this question is not straightforward. And anyone telling you that it is is probably deceiving you. So here's the thing. The Constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war, right?

But the Constitution also says that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military. So per the Constitution, the president can use military force in limited situations without Congress's formal approval because he is the commander-in-chief. And the reason that our founders set it up like this is because military action typically requires quick and decisive actions, right? And Congress is the very opposite of that. We talked about this a little bit in the Constitution episode in Unbiased University. We'll talk about it some more in the next three episodes, actually, of Unbiased

University when we cover the three branches of the federal government. But Congress was created to deliberate. So the founders gave the president military powers as commander in chief, but gave the power to declare war, which is much more serious and requires deliberation to Congress. Now, as commander in chief, the president's implied powers include engaging in military operations, which is different than declaring war, of course. And while it's controversial, since the year 2000, presidents have increasingly used what's called their Article 2, Commander-in-Chief Power, to justify these limited and defensive, in some cases, strikes without congressional approval.

So as examples, Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999. Obama authorized strikes in Libya in 2011. Trump ordered that strike that killed Soleimani. in 2020, Biden ordered strikes in Syria and Iraq in 2021, 2021, 2023, and 24. And then, of course, Trump authorized the strikes in Iran in June of last year, as well as these more recent strikes that we're talking about in this episode. And in each of those instances that we just talked about, all of those were done without Congress's approval.

Because Congress never officially and explicitly declared war during these military operations, the United States does not consider them official wars. So the president wasn't technically acting outside of his congressional authority merely by authorizing military operations as commander-in-chief. So the main legal justification here is the president's authority under Article 2 of the Constitution as commander-in-chief, which is meant to protect U.S. personnel and national interests from imminent threats. Now, was a threat imminent in this situation?

That is one of the debates here. Okay. So again, not straightforward. A lot of you also asked about the war powers resolution of 1973. And this was passed to limit presidential authority to direct military operations. This was passed in response to the Kennedy Johnson and Nixon administrations sending U.S. troops to Southeast Asia without congressional approval. That law requires presidents to notify Congress that troops have been deployed within 48 hours of their deployment. And then if Congress doesn't grant an extension for their deployment, the president has to bring those troops home after 60 days. So even through the war powers resolution, Congress is kind of telling the president, yes, you do have

this authority to deploy troops and take military action, you know, without us declaring war. But per this war powers resolution, you do have to notify us. There are restrictions on that authority. Since that law was passed, Congress itself has actually weakened it to some extent. So for example, after 9-11, Congress passed the authorizations for use of military force against terrorists or a UMF. This allowed the president to use all necessary force against nations or people associated with 9-11 without requiring congressional approval first. And the first AUMF was passed in 2001, the second was passed in 2002. And the thing with these is that they're still in effect today.

They never expired. And they won't expire unless Congress specifically repeals them or replaces them. But that probably won't happen because Congress wants to keep them around for flexibility when it comes to fighting terrorism, right? Now, some argue that these congressional authorizations have been stretched beyond their original intent, which, of course, we know the original intent was to authorize force against those responsible for 9-11 and to fight Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. But they've been used by all presidents, every president from President Bush to President Biden and now likely President Trump.

So it's complicated. And the answer is not straightforward. Don't let anyone tell you it's not complicated. Don't let anyone tell you it is straightforward. Don't let anyone tell you this is very clearly legal or illegal. Okay. One thing I do want to make clear because I think the media can be really deceptive about this. Whenever a president launches strikes without Congress, people are always split on whether this is an unconstitutional act. When Biden launched the strikes on Syria and Iraq, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle said the strikes were unconstitutional, said he should have consulted with them first, whereas others were saying he was well with his power to do so. Same thing happened with Trump back in June of 2025. Same thing is happening now.

What it comes down to is, was Trump responding to an emergency or imminent threat? If he was, the strikes were likely within his Article 2 power. If he wasn't, the strikes may very well be considered unconstitutional. And there are arguments on both sides of that debate. And then as far as whether Trump could face consequences for striking Iran without congressional approval, assuming that the strikes were unconstitutional. The answer is no. I mean, not unless Congress impeaches him, but even when it comes to impeachment, impeachment really comes with little to no consequences without a conviction. So the answer is no. The next question is related to the previous question. What did Congress vote on recently and why did it fail? Okay, Congress voted on a war powers resolution.

And this is different than the war powers resolution we just talked about in the last question and answer. So allow me to kind of explain the difference. The war powers resolution of 19. which is what we just talked about a few minutes ago, is a federal law that sets forth the requirements that the president has to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and military forces have to be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the conflict. That law also created this special procedure that allows Congress to introduce and vote on resolutions that. direct presidents to end military involvement. And that is what happened here. So when Senator Tim

Kane introduced the recent war powers resolution regarding Iran, he was using the procedure that was created by the original 1973 law. This particular war powers resolution essentially would have required President Trump to, one, remove all U.S. forces from the ongoing conflicts, and two, get congressional approval before carrying out any additional military action in Iran. But the vote in the Senate, which was pretty much along party lines, was 53-47 against advancing it. As far as why the resolution failed, a lot of the opponents of it argue that the president needs the flexibility to manage an active conflict. In other words, sometimes military decisions, as we said, have to be made quickly, especially when a conflict is actively ongoing. And requiring the president to first get congressional approval before responding to threats or attacks could be.

dangerous. Other senators felt that the military action in Iran was and is legally justified and therefore the resolution was unnecessary. But again, the vote was pretty much a long party line. So the main reason it failed was because Republicans hold the majority in Congress and they're standing behind the president in this situation. Next question, were the strikes illegal under international law or is there an international law that justifies them? If illegal, are there any repercussions under international law. So the legality of the strikes under international law is also something that's highly contested and it really depends on how the action is justified and interpreted, right? Similar to the constitution. Under the U.N. charter, the use of force by one state against another is generally

prohibited unless it's in self-defense against an armed attack or it's authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Now, the U.S. justified these strikes. and similar strikes in the past by citing the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, right? So the United States is framing this as a preemptive self-defense measure. However, under international law, preemptive or anticipatory self-defense is only lawful if the threat is imminent, which again raises that same question. Is Iran's uranium enrichment program an imminent threat? if the strikes are deemed illegal, the primary repercussions would come through, you know, diplomatic and political channels rather than enforceable legal penalties. But I mean, nothing can be done that would really impact the United States.

In theory, the UN Security Council could condemn the action. It could impose sanctions against the United States. It could refer the matter to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court if the strikes rose to the level of. of, you know, a war crime or aggression. But in reality, accountability is limited, especially because the United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and it can use its veto power to block any sort of formal action against it. So while these strikes could potentially be challenged as illegal under international law,

enforcement is weak when it comes to, you know, anything punitive for the United States. And then finally, the last question, what is the difference between declaring war and what is happening here. So we have not declared war. We likely won't. The main difference between a declaration of war and what is happening here is that a declaration of war requires a declaration from Congress. And again, that has not happened at this point.

It did not happen when we struck Iran back in June. It probably won't happen now. It just depends on how far this goes. Now, certain administration officials like the president and secretary Hegseth have referred to this operation as a quote unquote war, whereas other officials and lawmakers have explicitly said this is not a war. And the discrepancy comes from the literal definition of war versus the constitutional and legal interpretation of war. Okay. So if we look at the constitutional and legal interpretation of war, a war can only be declared by Congress, not the president. And that

tells us this is not a war from a constitutional and legal perspective because Congress has not declared one. It's impossible until Congress does that. But if we only look at the literal definition of war, then perhaps the nature of this conflict could be described as a war. So the reason you're hearing some officials call it a war and others call it a limited operation or just simply an armed conflict is because they're using different language for political and legal reasons. But just to be clear, Congress has not declared a war, which is why when we speak legally and constitutionally, it is still considered a conflict. That is what I have for you on Iran. I hope that this answered a lot of your questions. I hope you're feeling a bit more informed on the whole

situation. Again, sorry, it took me a couple weeks to get this out. Yeah, but life, you know. So next episode we'll get back into Unbiased University. We will cover the three branches of the federal government. So it'll be basically a three-part mini-series. Next episode on Thursday, I think, is the legislative branch. And then we go, I think, into the judicial branch in the following episode and then into the executive branch. And then we'll dive into some other really interesting topics after that. like the hidden power players in Washington, the evolution of political parties, and more. So a lot to look forward to in the next couple of weeks. I hope you have a great next couple of days.

And I will see you again or talk to you again, depending on if you're a YouTube watcher or an audio listener on Thursday.