NEED TO KNOW

• Congress voted down war powers resolutions in both chambers, largely along party lines
• Iran's Strait of Hormuz blockade triggered the largest oil supply shock since the 1970s
• A Pentagon supplemental spending bill is expected soon, with no public price tag attached

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — Two weeks into the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, the debate most Americans expected to have — what this war costs, how long it lasts, and who authorized it — is not happening in any official venue. Congress voted twice to sideline itself. The administration has offered shifting justifications. And the economic damage accumulating in real time, from gas pumps in Plano, Texas to shuttered LNG terminals in Qatar, is being absorbed without a public accounting from either party.

The war's central dynamic has snapped into focus. Iran cannot defeat the United States militarily. The United States cannot quickly force Iran to capitulate. What remains is an endurance contest, and the costs of that contest are landing on American consumers, Gulf allies and global markets while Washington debates procedure rather than strategy.

The Economic Bill No One Is Presenting

The numbers are not in dispute, even if their implications are. Brent crude oil climbed from roughly $70 per barrel before the Feb. 28 strikes to over $110 within days, with an intraday spike to nearly $120 on March 10. The Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy called the disruption to the Strait of Hormuz "the largest volumetric supply shock in the history of the modern oil market," a disruption exceeding the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the 1990 Gulf War and the 1979 Iranian Revolution in sheer volume of disrupted supply.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The national average gas price reached $3.41 per gallon as of March 8, up more than 43 cents in a single week, representing the largest weekly gain on record in data going back to 1983, according to U.S. crude futures tracking. Qatar declared force majeure on its LNG contracts after Iranian drone strikes on its Ras Laffan facility. Saudi Arabia's Ras Tanura refinery, which controls roughly 12 percent of global oil output, halted operations after debris from intercepted Iranian drones sparked a fire.

Cumulative oil production shut-ins across Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE reached 6 million barrels per day as of March 10, according to the Columbia energy analysis. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 400 points in the opening days of the conflict. Goldman Sachs warned prices could climb above $100 per barrel if shipping disruptions continue.

None of this has been formally addressed in a congressional hearing. No budget projection has been published. No supplemental appropriations request has been filed. Not yet.

"War is enormously expensive, as the military uses or loses munitions, equipment, aircraft, fuel, and other supplies. The government is quickly plowing through billions of dollars for a war that Congress never authorized." — American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU's analysis notes that the Trump administration will "very soon" ask Congress to pass a supplemental appropriations bill to fund the conflict. That bill will require votes in both chambers, and unlike the war powers resolutions, it cannot be vetoed. It represents the one remaining lever through which Congress can exert meaningful control over the pace and scope of the war. Whether it will use that lever is an open question.

Congress Voted — Mostly Not to Vote

On March 4, the Senate rejected a bipartisan War Powers Resolution in a 53–47 vote. The measure, led by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and backed by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, would have required the president to obtain explicit congressional authorization before continuing hostilities. A parallel resolution in the House, sponsored by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, was blocked on a 219–212 procedural vote before it could even reach the floor.

Most Republicans voted to sustain the president's authority. Most Democrats voted to restrict it. But the margins revealed genuine cross-partisan fractures. Two House Republicans, Massie and Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, sided with Democrats on the resolution. Four House Democrats voted the other way.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The administration's position was stated plainly by Secretary of State Marco Rubio: the president had not exceeded his authority, the briefings had been adequate, and the strikes were necessary.

"We've overcomplied with the law and what it requires. This is an action by the president to address a real threat." — Marco Rubio

Senate Majority Leader John Thune framed the war in broad strategic terms, suggesting its impact could be lasting.

"Not only for that region, but for the entire world, because Iran continued to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They are on the way to nuclear capability, and they're holding that entire region hostage and American interests as well." — John Thune

Critics in both parties pushed back, arguing the debate over procedure was obscuring a deeper question about accountability.

"I don't know how we put this genie back in the bottle. I don't know how we don't become a nation in which one person, one man, one woman, decides whether the entire country goes to war." — Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)

"The Constitution says we're not supposed to be at war without a vote of Congress. This is important. The lives of our troops are at risk." — Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Speaker Mike Johnson called the House resolution "dangerous." Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who had earlier backed congressional authorization requirements for Venezuela, drew a line at ground troops: "My view has always been, ground troops will require congressional authorization." No ground troops have been deployed to Iran.

The Legal Architecture Underneath

The constitutional tension here is not new, but its current expression is arguably more acute than at any point in decades. Yale Law professor Oona Hathaway, quoted in NPR's war powers analysis, was direct about the conflict's scale.

"Starting war in the Middle East that's now involving more than a dozen countries is war in the constitutional sense. The nature, scope and duration of this conflict is extraordinary." — Oona Hathaway, Yale Law

Columbia Law professor Matthew Waxman, a former official in the George W. Bush administration, framed the institutional problem in broader historical terms.

"James Madison in the Federalist Papers describes checks and balances as ambition checking ambition. We've seen presidents generally asserting prerogative and Congress being pretty passive and acquiescent." — Matthew Waxman, Columbia Law

The Council on Foreign Relations published a detailed analysis of the vote's implications, noting that even in the absence of formal congressional authorization, the practical effect has been to give the executive broad latitude. The analysis quoted George Washington directly: "No offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after [Congress] have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure." That standard has not been met in the current conflict.

What makes this moment different from prior war powers debates is the scope of the economic exposure. Prior conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya did not immediately trigger a global energy crisis affecting allied economies. This one has. And that changes the political math for lawmakers who may not care about constitutional theory but do care about gas prices in their districts.

Iran's Wager and Washington's Gap

Tehran's strategic calculation, laid out in reporting from the Japan Times and the Gulf International Forum, is not military victory. It is pain distribution. Iran's leadership concluded, before the first strikes landed, that it could not match U.S. and Israeli air power. What it could do was weaponize the global economy's dependence on the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf's energy infrastructure.

"At the moment, we hold the upper hand. Just look at the state of the global economy and energy markets — it has been very painful for them." — Ali Bagheri Kani, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps escalated that wager on March 11, warning that no vessel linked to the United States, Israel or their allies would be permitted transit through the strait.

"You will not be able to artificially lower the price of oil. Expect oil at $200 per barrel. The price of oil depends on regional security, and you are the main source of insecurity in the region." — IRGC Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters spokesperson

The International Energy Agency responded by authorizing a coordinated release of emergency oil reserves across member nations, with Germany, Austria and Japan each confirming participation. IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol was candid about the limits of that response.

"This is a major action aiming to alleviate the immediate impacts of the disruption in markets. But to be clear, the most important thing for a return to stable flows of oil and gas is the resumption of transit through the Strait of Hormuz." — Fatih Birol, IEA

Qatar's energy minister Saad al-Kaabi had warned days earlier that the trajectory was unsustainable for the broader region.

"All of the producers in the Gulf who rely on that export route will have to shut in production, like Iraq has already done for two or three major oil fields. This is bad news and the clock is ticking for many producers in the region." — Thijs Van de Graaf, energy expert, Al Jazeera

Energy analysts at J.P. Morgan described the shift in market psychology precisely.

"The market is shifting from pricing pure geopolitical risk to grappling with tangible operational disruption, as refinery shutdowns and export constraints begin to impair crude processing and regional supply flows." — J.P. Morgan analysts

President Donald Trump appeared aware of the economic vulnerability. When oil spiked to $120, he described the war as "short-term," calming markets enough to pull prices back to roughly $90. But he simultaneously vowed to continue the campaign. The gap between those two statements, "short-term" and continuing, has not been explained publicly.

What Both Parties Are Avoiding

Republicans who voted down the war powers resolutions have largely not addressed the economic costs in specific terms. The argument from Senate leadership has been strategic and forward-looking: Iran posed a nuclear threat, the operation was necessary, the objective is within reach. What "within reach" means, measured in weeks, months, oil prices or body counts, has not been defined.

Democrats pushing for hearings have focused primarily on the constitutional process argument, which, while substantively important, does not directly confront the economic toll either. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said the American people "do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home," but neither party has put a number on what "costly" means in this context.

The Middle East Council on Global Affairs has calculated that Gulf aviation disruptions alone, with Dubai International Airport indefinitely suspended, Qatar Airways grounded and Abu Dhabi's airport damaged, are projected to cost the region approximately $40 billion during Ramadan season. That is a cost absorbed by U.S. allies. It does not appear in any congressional debate on record.

Meanwhile, Djibouti's finance minister warned the conflict would "bring severe economic consequences for developing countries." Egypt's president declared his country's economy was in "a state of near-emergency." These are the downstream effects of a war that was authorized by no legislature anywhere.

The supplemental spending request, when it arrives in Congress, will force the vote that the war powers resolutions could not. It will attach a dollar figure to a conflict that has so far been debated only in constitutional and strategic terms. At that point, lawmakers in both parties will have to answer a question they have so far avoided: not whether the war was justified in principle, but what it is worth paying for in practice.

When the supplemental bill lands on Capitol Hill, will the same lawmakers who voted against oversight find it easier to approve a blank check — or will the price tag finally force the public accounting that the war powers votes didn't?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from NPR's war powers coverage, CNN's House vote analysis, PBS NewsHour's congressional reporting, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, Al Jazeera's energy reporting, the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, the Gulf International Forum, the ACLU's war powers analysis, Time's congressional coverage, and Wikipedia's 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis and economic impact entries.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10