by Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal

Power has always tested the character of those who possess it. When authority falls into the hands of an individual, the desires rooted deep within human nature often grow stronger. Yet history also bears witness to personalities who restrained their ambitions, controlled their impulses, and earned respect not through the display of power but through its careful limitation. The exercise of authority, therefore, has long remained a measure of moral discipline as much as political capability.

The history of the presidency of the United States offers an illuminating reflection of this enduring tension between power and restraint. Since the independence of the United States in 1776, forty-seven individuals have occupied the office of president. In the early decades of the republic, American leaders were primarily preoccupied with the consolidation of their young nation. But as the country gradually emerged from internal struggles and global conflicts with increasing economic and military strength, a profound transformation occurred. The United States began to perceive itself not merely as a sovereign state but as a power with global responsibilities and influence.

With this transformation came a new dimension to presidential authority. American presidents increasingly found themselves shaping not only domestic policy but also the political and military affairs of distant regions. As the twentieth century unfolded, many of them began to act with the conviction that global stability and international order could be influenced—or even directed—through American leadership. In certain moments this sense of responsibility inspired constructive engagement, but in other instances it encouraged the use of military power in ways that critics later questioned both politically and morally.

Historically, the United States has formally declared war only eleven times, all of them concentrated within five major conflicts. The authority to declare war constitutionally rests with Congress, yet the decisions leading to those declarations were shaped by presidential leadership. The first such declaration occurred during the presidency of James Madison, when the War of 1812 was declared against the United Kingdom. Decades later, President James K. Polk led the nation into the Mexican–American War in 1846, a conflict that ultimately ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and dramatically expanded American territory.

At the close of the nineteenth century, President William McKinley presided over the Spanish–American War, which marked the beginning of America’s emergence as an overseas power. The early twentieth century brought even larger responsibilities when President Woodrow Wilson led the United States into the First World War in 1917, declaring war on Germany and later on Austria-Hungary. The final and most expansive declarations of war came under President Franklin D. Roosevelt following the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, drawing the United States fully into the Second World War against Japan, Germany, and Italy, along with several allied states of the Axis powers.

Yet formal declarations of war represent only a fraction of the military engagements undertaken by the United States. Over the course of its history, the country has participated in dozens of armed conflicts without issuing an official declaration. Particularly after the Second World War, the pattern of military involvement changed significantly. Presidents increasingly relied on congressional resolutions, international mandates, or executive authority to deploy American forces abroad.

President Harry S. Truman’s decision to intervene in the Korean War in 1950 stands as a notable example. The conflict was described not as a war but as a “police action” conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, yet it involved large-scale combat against North Korean forces. His successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, oversaw the conclusion of that conflict while also initiating early American involvement in Vietnam.

The Vietnam War later expanded dramatically under President Lyndon B. Johnson following the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, which authorized extensive military operations against North Vietnam. President Richard Nixon continued the war until the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 brought an end to direct American involvement. These years illustrated how military engagements could evolve into prolonged conflicts even without formal declarations of war.

Later decades witnessed further examples of presidential military authority. President George H. W. Bush led the international coalition during the Persian Gulf War of 1990–1991 against Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait. His son, President George W. Bush, launched the war in Afghanistan in 2001 after the attacks of September 11 and later initiated the Iraq War in 2003. President Barack Obama continued military operations in both countries while authorizing intervention in Libya in 2011 against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi.

Beyond these major conflicts, numerous smaller-scale interventions have occurred. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada in 1983 and conducted airstrikes against Libya in 1986. President Bill Clinton authorized NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999 and several operations against Iraq. President Donald Trump later ordered missile strikes against Syrian government targets in 2017 and 2018. These actions, often described as interventions rather than wars, nonetheless demonstrated the expanding scope of presidential authority in military affairs.

The pattern of engagement has continued into the present era. A significant escalation occurred on February 28, 2026, when the United States, alongside Israel, initiated large-scale military operations against Iran. The campaign, known as Operation Epic Fury by the United States and Operation Roaring Lion by Israel, followed weeks of mounting tensions, stalled nuclear negotiations, and allegations concerning Iran’s regional military activities. Coordinated airstrikes employing advanced weaponry—including cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, strategic bombers, and drones—targeted Iranian leadership compounds, missile installations, air defense systems, naval assets, and military infrastructure across several regions, including the capital, Tehran.

The military campaign soon ignited an intense constitutional debate in Washington. Several members of Congress argued that the United States Constitution grants the authority to declare war exclusively to Congress and that sustained military operations required explicit legislative approval. In response, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced resolutions under the War Powers framework seeking to restrict the continuation of the conflict unless formally authorized by Congress.

However, both chambers of Congress ultimately rejected these efforts. The United States Senate voted by a margin of 53 to 47 against a resolution intended to limit the president’s authority to continue military operations against Iran, effectively allowing the campaign to proceed. Shortly afterward, the House of Representatives also rejected a similar war powers measure by a narrow vote of 219 to 212, declining to compel the administration to halt military action.

These decisions reflected the deep political divisions within American politics over questions of war powers, national security, and presidential authority. Supporters of the administration argued that restricting military action during an ongoing confrontation could weaken American deterrence and endanger allied forces in the region. Critics, however, warned that bypassing Congress risked eroding constitutional safeguards designed to prevent unilateral decisions that might draw the nation into prolonged conflict.

Meanwhile, the military confrontation itself has already widened. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against American military facilities and regional partners across the Gulf, including installations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, while also directing strikes toward Israel. The cycle of action and retaliation has heightened fears that a regional crisis could gradually evolve into a broader and more destructive conflict.

Such developments once again revive enduring questions about the relationship between power and restraint. The presidency of the United States remains one of the most influential political offices in the modern world. Decisions taken in the Oval Office can alter the strategic balance of entire regions and shape the fate of millions far beyond American shores. History suggests that while power may tempt leaders toward decisive action, the true test of leadership lies in the wisdom to distinguish between necessity and ambition. The legacy of any statesman is ultimately measured not merely by the wars he wages, but by the peace he preserves.

Qamar Bashir

The war between the United States–Israel alliance and Iran has entered a complex phase where battlefield destruction has not translated into political collapse. The campaign began with clearly articulated objectives: dismantle Iran’s nuclear capability, destroy its ballistic missile infrastructure, degrade its naval forces, and eliminate the networks through which Iran projects power across the Middle East. In the early stages of the conflict, large-scale aerial operations targeted missile depots, drone launch facilities, naval installations, command centers, and strategic infrastructure deep inside Iranian territory, including several high-value targets around Tehran.

Weeks into the war, however, the central political objective—the collapse or surrender of the Iranian regime—has not occurred. Iran’s military capacity has unquestionably been damaged. Missile sites, storage depots, air defense systems, and drone manufacturing facilities have been hit repeatedly. Thousands of targets have reportedly been struck, and casualties have included civilians, senior officials, and military commanders. Yet the Iranian state itself remains intact.

The leadership vacuum created by early strikes has been quickly filled. Replacement commanders have taken control of military units, administrative institutions continue to function, and the constitutional process for confirming or selecting national leadership is underway. This rapid institutional continuity reflects a fundamental design feature of the Iranian political system: it was built to withstand external shocks.

The result is a strategic paradox. Iran’s military infrastructure has been degraded, but its governing system survives. Wars aimed primarily at destroying weapons systems can achieve impressive tactical results while failing to achieve strategic victory if the political structure directing those weapons remains functional.

Iran’s history over the past four decades illustrates this resilience. The country has endured sanctions, economic isolation, technological restrictions, and sustained geopolitical pressure. During that period, Iran invested heavily in domestic industrial capabilities, scientific research, and decentralized defense production. The destruction of physical facilities therefore does not eliminate the technical knowledge, engineering expertise, or human capital that produced them. As long as these capabilities remain embedded within the state’s institutions, rebuilding remains possible.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps continues to function as the backbone of Iran’s defense system. With hundreds of thousands of personnel and extensive logistical networks, it represents both a military force and a political institution deeply integrated into the country’s governance. Even if several of its facilities have been damaged, the organization itself remains intact and committed to defending the state.

Because of this resilience, the center of gravity in the war is gradually shifting away from purely military objectives toward economic pressure—particularly control over global energy routes.

The Strait of Hormuz has become the most critical strategic flashpoint. This narrow waterway connects the Persian Gulf to global markets and carries a substantial share of the world’s oil supply. Under normal circumstances, millions of barrels of crude oil move through the strait every day, fueling industries, transportation systems, and national economies across multiple continents. Disruption in this corridor sends immediate shockwaves through global markets.

Oil is the lifeblood of modern economies. Transportation networks, manufacturing industries, agricultural systems, and global logistics chains all depend on stable energy supplies. When oil flow is threatened, the consequences extend far beyond the battlefield.

The current conflict has already produced visible economic effects. Oil prices have risen significantly across international markets, and the impact is being felt across the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Higher energy prices are increasing transportation costs, raising manufacturing expenses, and placing upward pressure on inflation.

Even countries that produce their own oil cannot fully escape these effects. Modern economies are deeply interconnected. Rising shipping costs, higher insurance premiums for maritime transport, and disruptions in global supply chains raise the cost of goods and services almost everywhere.

As fuel prices rise, the cost of living rises with them. Transportation becomes more expensive. Food prices increase because agriculture depends heavily on fuel for machinery and distribution. Industrial production costs rise. Consumers experience declining purchasing power.

This economic pressure may ultimately become the most powerful force influencing the war’s outcome. Democratic societies are especially sensitive to such economic shocks. In the United States and across Europe, populations are politically active and economically demanding. When citizens begin to experience sustained increases in living costs—whether through gasoline prices, heating bills, or inflation in essential goods—they inevitably question the policies responsible for those conditions.

Public debate intensifies. Legislatures face scrutiny. Opposition movements gain momentum. Citizens begin asking whether the objectives of a war justify the economic hardship imposed upon them.

If energy prices continue rising for a prolonged period, domestic pressure within Western societies could grow rapidly. Protest movements, political opposition, and electoral pressures may begin pushing governments toward negotiation or de-escalation.

Energy-importing nations across Asia, Africa, and Latin America may also demand stability in global markets. Many developing economies are extremely vulnerable to energy price spikes. Rising fuel costs strain national budgets, accelerate inflation, and threaten economic stability. These countries may therefore use diplomatic channels to push for an end to hostilities.

Interestingly, Iran itself may be relatively better positioned to endure prolonged energy disruptions. As a major oil producer with experience surviving decades of sanctions, the country has developed economic coping mechanisms that wealthier societies rarely face. This does not mean Iran is immune to economic pain, but its population has historically endured hardship more frequently than populations in highly industrialized economies. In a prolonged conflict, this difference in economic tolerance may influence political dynamics.

Another critical dimension of this war is unfolding beyond the immediate battlefield. Major global powers such as China and Russia are watching the conflict extremely closely. While not directly involved in the fighting, both countries are observing every stage of the conflict with strategic interest.

Modern wars serve not only as military confrontations but also as real-time laboratories of technological and strategic knowledge. China and Russia are likely analyzing every aspect of the conflict: the deployment of U.S. naval forces, the logistics of long-distance power projection, the performance of advanced missile defenses, the effectiveness of cyber warfare techniques, and the coordination between allied military forces. They are also observing the economic tools used in the conflict—sanctions, financial restrictions, and trade disruptions.

By studying these dynamics, both countries can refine their own strategic planning. Every weapon system used in the war provides valuable data. Every military maneuver reveals operational strengths and weaknesses. Every cyberattack or defensive response demonstrates new capabilities.

In effect, the war provides China and Russia with a rare opportunity to observe the full spectrum of American and allied military power in real-world conditions. This information can then be incorporated into their own military development programs. Lessons drawn from the conflict may influence the design of future missile systems, air defense networks, naval strategies, and cyber warfare capabilities. In the long term, this means the conflict could unintentionally accelerate the military modernization of America’s strategic competitors.

By revealing operational methods, logistical patterns, and technological performance under battlefield conditions, the war offers insights that might otherwise take decades to obtain. From this perspective, the geopolitical consequences of the conflict extend far beyond the Middle East.

The war is simultaneously reshaping energy markets, testing political resilience within democratic societies, and providing valuable strategic intelligence to rival global powers.

These multiple pressures may ultimately shape the war’s conclusion.

Military power alone rarely determines the final outcome of conflicts involving resilient states. Economic pressure, political legitimacy, and international strategic calculations often play equally decisive roles. Iran has absorbed significant military damage but remains politically intact. The United States and Israel possess overwhelming military capability but face increasing economic and geopolitical complications as the conflict continues.

Meanwhile, global powers observing from the sidelines are quietly gathering knowledge that could reshape future strategic balances. In the end, the decisive factor may not be the destruction of missiles or military bases. The outcome may instead be determined by the economic strain of rising energy prices, the political pressure of public opinion, and the strategic calculations of global powers watching closely from afar.

The war’s endgame therefore remains uncertain. What began as a campaign to destroy military capabilities may ultimately evolve into a broader contest involving economics, diplomacy, and the shifting balance of global power.

Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former Press Attaché to Malaysia

Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan