Trump made his own war harder to win | Opinion

On the night of April 7, just hours before his self-imposed deadline, President Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire agreement with Iran. The war in Iran has been costing the United States: About 6 in 10 Americans oppose it, and rising costs are hardening that opposition. His sudden push for a quick resolution, along with his self-imposed deadlines, shows a president reacting to a collapsing political position.

The Constitution makes it hard to go to war alone for a reason. Wars require consensus to endure. Without it, public support erodes quickly, especially once the costs start to bite.

Trump should have gone to Congress, not just because the Constitution requires it, but also because it would have made the war easier to sustain. Congressional approval forces lawmakers to own the decision, and that shared responsibility makes the public more willing to absorb the costs.

Trump did the opposite. He acted alone, and Americans have little appetite for a war they never agreed to.

Presidents don't win wars alone

Wars become politically fragile when Americans feel the cost. In this case, rising gas prices and broader economic strain have turned public opinion against the effort.

The administration did little to prepare the country for that reality. Trump’s usual message – "Trust me, everything will be fine" – hasn’t held up once the costs became real.

Iranian leaders, too, understood that they didn't have to outlast American might; they just had to outlast Trump's political tolerance. This gave them a stronger negotiating position than they otherwise would have had.

If Trump had sought congressional authorization, the politics of this war would look very different. He would have had to make his case publicly. If Congress backed him, its members would own the decision.

Lawmakers who vote for a war have an incentive to defend it. Instead of leaving Trump to carry the burden alone, they would be out making the case alongside him, not waiting to blame him if it goes badly.

It also gives the public a clear line of accountability. If a war goes wrong, voters can hold the lawmakers who supported it accountable.

When a president acts alone, that accountability disappears – and the backlash falls on him.

Afghanistan shows how this works. After 9/11, the Bush administration made the case for war, Congress backed it, and public support started high and held for years. Public anger made the case for war, but congressional authorization gave that support institutional backing.

That consensus didn’t guarantee success, but it gave the war political durability at the outset.

This war looks nothing like that. Trump launched it without congressional approval and sold it as a short, contained operation. Instead, he has poured in more resources while chasing a deal that hasn’t materialized, and the conflict is now escalating.

This is what war without consensus looks like: no shared ownership, no political cushion and no easy way out.

Republicans in Congress failed to check Trump

Trump still acts as if he has a broad mandate. He never had as much latitude as he claimed, and whatever political capital he did have is gone.

He is now deeply unpopular, so every decision is met with skepticism. Acting alone only makes that worse.

Congress could have forced this decision into the open. It could have demanded a vote before any military action began. The buildup to war was clear, and there was time to act.

Instead, Republicans ceded that authority. Staying on the sidelines spared them political risk and left Trump alone to own the consequences.

By leaving Congress out, Trump made this war harder to sustain. Lawmakers had every incentive to avoid the risk, and they took it.

They stepped aside. They left him to carry a war the country never bought.

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.