S.J.Res. 59, H.Con.Res. 38, H.Con.Res. 40 - Iran War Powers Resolutions & S.2087 - The No War Against Iran Act

S.J.Res. 59 was introduced on June 16th 2025 by Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA). It is currently pending before the Committee on Foreign Relations, and has no cosponsors.

H.Con.Res. 38 was introduced on June 17th by Representatives Massie (R-KY) and Khanna (D-CA). It is currently up for a Procedural Motion the week of February 23, 2025, and has 76 co-sponsors on a bipartisan basis.

H.Con.Res. 40 was introduced on June 24th by Representatives Meeks (D-NY), Smith (D-WA), and Himes (D-CT), who are also the Ranking Members on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, and Intelligence, respectively. It is currently pending before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and has 79 co-sponsors on a party-line basis.

S.2087 was introduced on June 17th by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). It is currently pending before the Committee on Foreign Relations, and has seven cosponsors, all Democrats.

Related legislation: N/A

Bill Summary: Each of these Bills is intended to prevent the United States from entering hostilities against Iran in the context of Israel’s current attacks on that country without the explicit consent of Congress. S.J.Res. 59 and H.Con.Res.38 are both Bills under the War Powers Act; the main differences between them are procedural and legal: Both are eligible for different forms of expedited procedures; The Senate Joint Resolution would be legally binding upon passage of both Houses and signature of the President; the House Concurrent Resolutions do not require the President’s signature, but would arguably not be legally binding.

S.2087 is not eligible for expedited procedures, and would prohibit the use of U.S. funds to conduct military force against Iran.

All three bills contain carve-outs for U.S. self-defense, and none would prevent the U.S. from intercepting missiles fired at Israel or other countries; H.Con.Res. 38 contains an additional carve-out for intelligence activities, including intelligence sharing with partners, while H.Con.Res. 40 also contains an explicit carve-out to defend “an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack.....” This carve-out, intended to placate Democratic Members who wish to demonstrate their commitment to the defense of Israel appears worded in a way that would permit pre-emptive U.S. attacks against Iranian targets including but not limited to ballistic missile launchers, and thus defeats much of the purpose of the Resolution almost to the point of making it an Authorization for the Use of Military Force by stealth.

Context: In the midst of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, and despite the official U.S. Intelligence Community assessment that Iran has not been actively pursuing an atomic bomb since 2003, starting on June 13th Israel began a series of unprovoked attacks against Iran’s nuclear program, military leadership, and additional targets framed by Prime Minister Netanyahu as intended to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran has responded with ballistic missile attacks against Israel and its negotiations with the United States have been suspended. It has been reported that Netanyahu has repeatedly pressed the United States to join its operation, and U.S. forces have been deployed to the region to enable and conduct strikes should President Trump approve U.S. involvement. As multiple U.S. policymakers and global experts have noted, military action may set back any Iranian nuclear program in the short term, but is likely to drive Iran to authorize an accelerated pathway to a nuclear capability.

American Values Analysis: In his inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson warned the United States against entangling alliances. The United States has no direct interest in a war with Iran – indeed, was actively involved in diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program, and for the U.S. to be dragged into a war of Israel’s choosing would be a violation of our commitments under the U.N. Charter and our longstanding commitment to a world at peace.

American Interest Analysis: A conflict with Iran would create significant risks for U.S. forces, U.S. partners in the region, and possibly the U.S. homeland. Should the Iranian government collapse or its ability to govern be significantly degraded, the U.S. may also be drawn into a long-lasting military involvement in a country twice the size and population of Iraq, creating a drain on our forces and treasury that would be a distraction from U.S. global defense priorities in Europe and the Far East.

A New Policy’s Recommendation: SUPPORT S.J.Res. 59, H.Con.Res.38

REQUIRES AMENDMENT: H.Con.Res. 40

A New Policy supports S.J.Res. 59, H.Con.Res.38, and S.2087 because they aim to prevent our entry into a new conflict at the behest and to the political benefit of Prime Minister Netanyahu, rather than the U.S. national interest.

H.Con.Res. 40 requires amendment to remove the carve-out that can be read to authorize preemptive strikes; absent such amendment it divides the existing caucus against further U.S. military action in Iran, and essentially authorizes pre-emptive strikes in a manner that undermines much of the purpose of what purports to be a War Powers Resolution.

For more information please contact: Josh Paul, info@anewpolicy.org, (202) 770-0055