By James Berreth 

Editor in Chief 

The conflict between the United States and Iran entered a dangerous new phase Sunday the 12^th of July as American forces launched another wave of military strikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure. This came following renewed attacks on commercial shipping and U.S. allies near the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, intensifying fears that the two countries are moving further from diplomacy and closer to a prolonged regional war. 

The latest military action follows weeks of intermittent fighting after a fragile ceasefire unraveled. U.S. officials said the strikes were intended to degrade Iran’s ability to threaten international shipping lanes and regional military installations. Iranian officials responded by launching missiles and drones toward U.S. partner nations, while continuing to assert control over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important maritime chokepoints. 

The renewed hostilities have revived one of the most significant constitutional questions facing the United States: how much authority a president possesses to wage sustained military operations without explicit authorization from Congress. 

Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress holds the power to declare war, while Article II designates the president as commander in chief of the armed forces. Although presidents of both political parties have initiated military operations without formal declarations of war, constitutional scholars have argued that prolonged offensive campaigns require congressional approval. 

Those concerns intensified in June when both the House and Senate approved a bipartisan war powers resolution seeking to limit continued U.S. military involvement in Iran absent congressional authorization. While the measure represents one of the strongest legislative rebukes of presidential war-making authority in decades, its practical effect remains uncertain because the White House has challenged its legal force and presidential veto authority remains a significant obstacle. 

Military analysts say the latest exchange demonstrates how quickly limited operations can evolve into a broader regional conflict. 

Rather than focusing solely on Iranian territory, recent Iranian retaliation has targeted military facilities and commercial shipping across multiple countries, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and Oman. The expanding battlefield has required additional U.S. naval and air assets to protect shipping lanes and allied installations throughout the Persian Gulf. 

Control of the Strait of Hormuz remains central to the conflict as roughly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil traditionally passes through the narrow waterway, making any disruption capable of affecting energy markets worldwide. Although U.S. officials maintain commercial traffic remains possible through portions of the strait, repeated attacks have forced shipping companies to reroute vessels or delay transit while insurers increase premiums for operating in the region. 

The economic consequences extend well beyond the Middle East. 

Higher transportation costs and concerns over future oil supplies have contributed to increased volatility in global energy markets. Economists warn that sustained disruptions could place additional upward pressure on gasoline prices, aviation fuel costs, and consumer inflation at a time when many central banks continue efforts to stabilize prices after years of elevated inflation. 

Financial markets also face growing uncertainty as investors weigh the possibility of a longer conflict requiring additional U.S. military expenditures while increasing risks to global trade. Energy producers have benefited from price fluctuations, but industries dependent on international shipping – including manufacturing and retail – could experience higher operating costs if instability persists. 

Diplomatic efforts have continued despite the renewed fighting. Mediators including Qatar, Egypt, and Pakistan have urged both governments to return to negotiations, but recent military exchanges have significantly reduced expectations for an immediate breakthrough. 

For the United States, the conflict has become more than a military confrontation overseas. It has evolved into a test of constitutional checks and balances, congressional authority over war powers, and the nation’s ability to balance national security objectives against the economic costs of sustained military engagement. As fighting continues and diplomatic prospects diminish, those debates are likely to grow alongside the conflict itself. 

In Other News: Longtime Sen. Lindsey Graham dies at 71 

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who spent more than two decades in the Senate and became one of President Donald Trump’s closest allies, died Saturday after what his office described as a “brief and sudden illness.” He was 71. 

Graham’s office announced his death late Saturday but initially provided few details. On Sunday, the District of Columbia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner said preliminary findings indicated he died from an aortic dissection caused by arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 

First elected to the Senate in 2002 after serving four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, Graham became one of the Republican Party’s most influential voices on national security, judicial nominations and foreign policy. A former Air Force attorney and Reserve colonel, he advocated for an assertive U.S. role abroad and was a leading supporter of military aid to Ukraine and Israel. 

Graham’s political career was also defined by his evolving relationship with Donald Trump. After emerging as one of Trump’s sharpest Republican critics during the 2016 presidential campaign, Graham later became one of the president’s closest congressional allies, helping advance judicial nominations and supporting much of Trump’s legislative and foreign policy agenda. 

His death leaves a vacancy in the Senate during a closely divided Congress. Under South Carolina law, Gov. Henry McMaster is expected to appoint an interim replacement until a special election is held. 

Tributes from political leaders across the ideological spectrum praised Graham’s decades of public service while acknowledging his lasting influence on American foreign policy and the modern Republican Party.