It is impossible to see what the United States gained from the Iran war | Opinion

The disastrous war in Iran reveals the brilliance of the framers of the Constitution in creating a government based on separation of powers — and the folly in abandoning that framework.

It is impossible to see what the United States gained from the war it initiated, and it is unclear whether the U.S.-Iran peace agreement will hold. President Donald Trump’s stated goals of regime change in Iran and depriving the country of nuclear materials were not achieved. Quite the contrary: The new leaders of Iran seem more radical than their predecessors, and the issue of nuclear material was left for future discussions.

While the benefits to the war are non-existent, the costs have been great. The Deputy Secretary of Defense told members of Congress last week that it was seeking a supplemental expenditure of $80 billion to cover the costs of the war. Its total cost will be well over $100 billion, which does not include costs to repair damage to U.S. military bases and to replace the more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles and more than 1,500 air defense missiles that were used.

It is also estimated that the U.S. killed over 3,000 people in Iran, including over 150 in what appears to be a mistaken Tomahawk missile strike on a school.

This does not begin to calculate the harms from the inflation caused by the war or the damage to other countries in the Middle East. And it all assumes that the war is coming to an end.

Iran clearly came out better in the deal to stop the war. For Iran, the memorandum of understanding includes a total lifting of sanctions, access to frozen funds and even $300 billion for repairs. Iran has agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz without charge, but only for 60 days.

There is no spin that can make this other than a huge loss for the United States.

The war reflects the grave dangers in abandoning the checks and balances built into the Constitution. The framers designed a government where two branches of government were required to be involved in any major action. Whether to go to war is one of the most profoundly important decisions any nation can make. The Constitution requires the involvement of two branches of government: Article I gives Congress the power to declare war. If it’s declared, Article II gives the president the power to wage it.

James Madison wrote: “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced.”

Although it was understood that the president could defend the United States in case of an attack, the framers believed that going to war was a choice for Congress to make. When President George Washington was implored to go on the offensive against the Wabash Indians, he responded: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated on the subject, and authorized such a measure.”

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson sent a small squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect against possible attacks by the Barbary powers. He told Congress that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” He said that it was up to Congress to authorize “measures of offense also.”

Trump, however, has made no effort to get congressional approval for this war. Apparently, there was not even consultation with Congress. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal statute, requires that troops be withdrawn after 60 days unless Congress approves their continued presence. The 60 days expired on May 1, but Trump and Congress just ignored the law.

The structure of the Constitution and federal law serves many important purposes. They are based on the belief that no single person should have the power to make the choice to launch and wage a war. It is hoped that having two branches of government involved lessens the likelihood of tragic mistakes.

The Constitution also requires that two branches of government be involved in agreements between the United States and other countries. It allows the president to negotiate treaties, but they go into effect only if approved by two-thirds of the Senate.

The Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, however, was agreed to with no involvement of Congress. It is highly doubtful that a majority of the Senate — let alone two-thirds — would have approved the concessions to Iran contained in this agreement.

The lesson here is that there is great peril in abandoning the Constitution. In our constitutional democracy, no one individual should have the authority to wage and conclude a war like this. We must find ways to enforce checks and balances in the future to keep our current and future presidents from such awful, enormously costly mistakes.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

This story was originally published June 26, 2026 at 5:00 AM with the headline "It is impossible to see what the United States gained from the Iran war | Opinion."