America’s involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict has so far consisted of enhancing Israel’s defense posture by supplying it with missile interceptors and intelligence—without ever engaging directly in combat.

The United States lent assistance to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during their strikes against Iran last week. While the United States did not provide overt offensive assistance, it was directly involved in defensive operations protecting Israel from Iranian retaliation. 

US involvement raises multiple questions regarding America’s posture in the region. However, the most important question is whether US involvement without congressional authorization is legal. 

To What Degree Was the United States Involved in the Strikes?

The US military’s primary contribution to Israel’s strikes against Iran was defensive in nature. The United States provided multilayer interception across air, land, and sea to Israel, which blunted the Iranian response and permitted Tel Aviv to more ambitiously pursue targets deep within Iran. 

The United States redeployed Patriot and THAAD batteries to reinforce Israel’s layered missile defense umbrella, covering short-, medium-, and long-range threats. This included relocating systems from Asia and replenishing stocks to make up for Israel’s strained interceptors. 

The United States also sent additional Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to the Eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea, armed with SM-2/SM-3/SM-6 interceptors capable of intercepting both missiles and drones. 

In contrast to its response to previous Iranian missile attacks, US ships and fighter jets did not directly engage incoming air threats over Israel during the most recent exchange. Instead, their role was to bolster Israel’s defenses, offering backup capacity for interceptors and providing resupply where needed.

US forces further assisted with the sharing of real-time intelligence and targeting data with Israel, allowing for faster response times across multiple defense layers. The United States also played a role in intelligence gathering and monitoring, aiding in threat detection and alerting Israeli systems. 

Washington also strengthened its regional presence by deploying two aircraft carriers—the USS Nimitz and the USS Carl Vinson—to the Arabian Sea, plus additional field assets such as tankers, B-2 bombers, and fighter jets

In effect, America’s involvement consisted of enhancing Israel’s defense posture by supplying it with missile interceptors, furnishing Israel with intelligence, and deterring Iran by increasing its force posture in the Middle East, without ever engaging directly in shooting down Iranian drones or missiles. The approach reflects a defensive-support strategy. 

Is US Involvement in the Strikes Against Iran Constitutional?

US actions toe the line concerning participation in conflict without formal Congressional authorization. President Donald Trump’s actions against Iran occupy a legal gray area, a modus operandi that previous administrations have often exploited. 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. The resolution also limits military engagement to 60 days without formal Congressional authorization. But what counts as “hostilities?” The vagueness of the “hostilities” definition allows for a legal gray area, which Courts generally defer to the Executive to interpret.

Does supporting another nation’s defense, i.e., deploying Patriot and THAAD missile defense systems, count as hostilities? Presidents tend to answer no to the aforementioned question.  While this interpretation remains open to legal debate, what is far less debatable is that direct combat or kinetic involvement would certainly count as hostilities under the War Powers Resolution. The United States is therefore toeing a fine line concerning assisting Israel without Congressional authorization.