S.J. Res. 115, S.J. Res. 116, S.J. Res. 117, S.J.Res.118 and S.J.Res.123: Iran War Powers Resolutions

S.J.Res.115 was introduced on March 5, 2026 by Senator Chris Murphy. It is currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has 3 co-sponsors on a partyline basis.

S.J.Res.116 was introduced on March 5, 2026 by Senator Chris Murphy. It is currently up for a Procedural Motion on March 19 and has 3 co-sponsors on a partyline basis.

S.J.Res.117 was introduced on March 5, 2026 by Senator Adam Schiff. It is currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has 3 co-sponsors on a partyline basis.

S.J.Res.118 was introduced on March 5, 2026 by Senator Cory Booker. It is currently up for a Procedural Motion on March 18 and has 3 co-sponsors on a partyline basis.

S.J.Res.123 was introduced on March 10, 2026 by Senator Tammy Duckworth. It is currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has 5 co-sponsors on a partyline basis.

Related legislation: H.Con.Res. 38,  H.Con.Res. 40, and S.J.Res. 59

Bill Summary All five resolutions direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran unless such hostilities are explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force enacted by Congress. In that core operative purpose, the bills are substantively the same. The primary differences are in the scope of carve-outs and framing language:

• S.J.Res. 115 and 116 have the most limited carve-outs. They restrict partner support to intercepting retaliatory attacks by Iran or its proxies and providing “defensive materiel” for those purposes. These joint resolutions refer only to partner countries and do not explicitly mention the State of Israel.

• S.J.Res. 117, 118, and 123 expand these carve-outs to allow broader “defensive measures” to protect territory from retaliatory attacks by Iran or its proxies. All three explicitly reference the State of Israel along with partners and allies.

• S.J.Res. 117 and 123 include carve-outs for the security, departure, and evacuation of U.S. citizens.

Context: These resolutions arise in the context of an escalating conflict following the Trump administration’s February 28, 2026 launch of Operation Epic Fury. The conflict has introduced significant economic and security risks, including threats to the global economy tied to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, attacks affecting U.S. partners’ infrastructure, and drawing the region into a war it did not ask for. The continued escalation and risk of mission creep raise the possibility of a prolonged conflict that could draw the United States into a large-scale war with no clear endpoint, objectives, or defined national interest.

Ongoing missile defense operations, the depletion of interceptor arsenals in the United States and U.S. partners, and the redeployment of systems such as THAAD from other theaters underscore the strain on U.S. military readiness and the tradeoffs being made across global priorities, including in the Indo-Pacific and Europe. At the same time, one of the administration’s few consistent justifications for U.S. involvement has been the assertion that it is necessary in response to anticipated Israeli strikes, even as negotiations in Geneva regarding Iran’s nuclear program were reportedly progressing.

The conflict has already contributed to large-scale displacement within Iran and, in doing so, may have unintentionally reshaped internal political dynamics, including the regime’s looming succession question. Each additional day of fighting delays the possibility of a more stable and prosperous future for the Iranian people, while forcing an increasingly stark choice between unconditional support for Israel’s security priorities and the stability of global markets, as well as the credibility of U.S. security guarantees abroad.

American Values Analysis: All five resolutions are consistent with core American constitutional values and reflect the principles articulated by James Madison in Helvidius. Madison made clear that the authority to initiate war rests exclusively with Congress, writing that “the power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature,” and that the executive “has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” These resolutions reflect that constitutional framework by reaffirming that the decision to enter hostilities, particularly against a sovereign nation, must be made through democratic deliberation, not executive action alone.

American Interest Analysis: All five resolutions align with American interests by seeking to prevent a war of choice from escalating into a new forever war. Such a conflict would further destabilize the global economy, strain U.S. military readiness in priority theaters such as Europe and the Indo-Pacific, and place American service members at increasing risk as deployments expand across the Middle East.

A New Policy’s Recommendation: SUPPORT

A New Policy supports all five resolutions as they seek to prevent a war of choice against Iran from escalating into a prolonged and destabilizing conflict that runs counter to American interests and, in its current form, appears to disproportionately advance the strategic objectives of the State of Israel rather than those of the United States. 

In particular, A New Policy strongly supports S.J.Res. 115 and 116, as they maintain a more neutral framework by referring broadly to partner countries rather than singling out the State of Israel. This approach avoids language that could be interpreted as prioritizing one partner’s security above others or expanding the scope of permissible U.S. involvement.

A New Policy also supports the inclusion in S.J.Res. 117 and 123 of carve-outs for the security, departure, and evacuation of U.S. citizens. However, S.J.Res. 117, 118, and 123 expand carve-outs to allow broader “defensive measures” and explicitly reference the State of Israel alongside partners and allies, which signals preferential treatment for the State of Israel and greater ambiguity in how U.S. support can be measured.

While A New Policy supports S.J.Res. 118, it is the weakest of the five bills due to its broader carve-out language, signals preferential treatment for the State of Israel to our partners and allies in the gulf, and reduced clarity in limiting the scope of U.S. military engagement.

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