What considerations led Trump to claim that the US-Iran conflict is "over"?

On May 1st, the 60-day deadline for President Trump to use military force without congressional authorization expired. On that day, Trump wrote to Congress, stating that hostilities between the United States and Iran had "ended" and that the White House did not need to seek authorization from Congress. However, Trump slipped up in front of reporters, admitting that he deliberately avoided using the word "war" in the letter, indicating that the actions should have been approved. What were the main considerations for Trump to avoid congressional authorization? Does this action create new space for the US to use military force again? What uncontrollable external factors exist in the termination of the US-Iran conflict? Considerations behind Trump's claim of "ending" hostilities According to analysis from US media, Trump evaded seeking congressional authorization by claiming that hostilities had ended, partly to preserve Republican unity. Under the War Powers Act passed by Congress in 1973, after informing Congress of the use of military force for the first time, the President must decide within 60 days to halt the military operation or seek congressional authorization to continue. The Trump administration officially notified Congress of military action against Iran on March 2nd, which meant the 60-day legal deadline expired on May 1st. The arrival of the 60-day deadline was expected to be a key turning point for a group of Republican lawmakers. These lawmakers had previously supported temporary military action against Iran but insisted that congressional authorization must be sought if the action was to continue for a longer period. For example, Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine had explicitly stated that presidential powers are not unlimited, and the 60-day deadline is a legal requirement. If the Trump administration formally sought authorization, Republican lawmakers would be forced to publicly vote on a war that is not fully supported within the US. With only over 6 months left until the 2026 midterm elections, and with high oil prices and Trump's approval ratings at historic lows, claiming the end of hostilities could help resolve this political dilemma and prevent Republican lawmakers from facing this "hot potato." Furthermore, Trump's claim of the end of hostilities was also aimed at dispelling the Democratic Party's legal challenges. According to Time magazine, Democratic lawmakers had been discussing the possibility of suing Trump if the government failed to seek authorization after the 60-day deadline. By claiming the end of hostilities, if Democrats still seek litigation, there will be legal barriers to meet in order to cross the threshold for litigation, making it very difficult based on the usual practices of federal courts in handling disputes over the separation of powers. Does this create new space for the US to use military force again? If Trump's argument of "ending hostilities" is accepted, any future military strikes against Iran by the US will be considered a new military operation in terms of US law. This would restart the 60-day clock, giving the Trump administration once again unilateral action space without congressional approval. Throughout US history, the Trump administration's actions are not unique. Former presidents like Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and Biden have also launched military actions using similar arguments, claiming that their military actions were insufficient or too intermittent to constitute "hostilities" as defined by the War Powers Act. Statistics show that from 1973 to 2019, US presidents launched over a hundred military actions against foreign countries without formal declaration of war by Congress. Some US legal experts argue that when Congress drafted the War Powers Act, they used "hostilities" instead of "armed conflict" to cover a broader range of situations. If even hostilities with Iran do not constitute "hostilities," then this concept will lose its meaning in the law. If the logic that "ceasefire means the end of hostilities" is established, the War Powers Act will become a dead letter. Any future president could claim that hostilities are temporarily halted or "ended," and then resume military actions without seeking congressional approval. Adam Smith, the Democratic chief of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed helplessness, saying, "Are we really expecting the Trump administration to follow the law?" What uncontrollable variables exist in the "end of hostilities"? Whether hostilities with Iran have truly ended is not solely determined by the Trump administration. Analysts believe that for the US, strategic considerations with Iran and Israel are two uncontrollable external variables in the end of hostilities. From Iran's perspective, the joint US-Israeli military operation did not completely defeat Iran, which can be seen as a "victory" for Iran in some sense, and could strengthen their determination to maintain nuclear capabilities. Iran holds the card of the Strait of Hormuz, and if they block the strait, causing oil prices to skyrocket, it could damage Trump's political reputation among US voters by making them experience the costs of war firsthand. Regarding Israel, fundamental disagreements between the US and Israel on war goals have long been evident. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's domestic political life heavily relies on the narrative of "victory" in war. Israel seems likely to want to continue and broaden military actions, and any US-Iran agreement that allows Iran to retain nuclear capabilities will face strong resistance from Israel. Additionally, Iran has made it clear that a ceasefire is linked to no longer targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon. However, Israel, using Hezbollah's "violation of the ceasefire agreement" as a reason, continues to launch military strikes in Lebanon. The issues of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's nuclear program, Israel-Lebanon conflict, and more are challenges facing the US, Iran, and Israel, and finding a mutually acceptable intersection of interests may be a difficult problem. This article is translated from Xinhua News, edited by GMTEight: Zhang Jinliang.