Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Discover

Pentagon Considers “Operation Sledgehammer” to Restart Iran Campaign, Challenging Congress

Pentagon Considers “Operation Sledgehammer” to Restart Iran Campaign, Challenging Congress
Click to expand

The Pentagon had explored renaming any renewed U.S. military campaign against Iran “Operation Sledgehammer” if the fragile ceasefire collapsed, a move officials said could also reset the 60‑day clock under the War Powers Resolution and extend President Donald Trump’s ability to wage war without fresh authorization from Congress aa. The discussions came as the Iran ceasefire was described by Trump as “on massive life support” and U.S. forces remained massed around the Strait of Hormuz aa +1.

Operation Epic Fury, launched on February 28 alongside Israeli strikes, marked the start of the current conflict. Offensive bombing was paused on April 7, after which the administration told Congress that “hostilities” had terminated, even as a U.S. naval blockade and Iranian attacks on shipping continued aa +1. The 60‑day legal deadline for unauthorized wars passed on May 1, intensifying a confrontation between the White House and lawmakers over whether the president could simply restart large‑scale strikes under a new operation name.

A Name Change With Major Legal Stakes

White House officials argued that any major resumption of bombing would be organized as a distinct campaign under a new name, with “Operation Sledgehammer” one label under consideration, and that doing so would “restart the clock” on the War Powers Resolution’s 60‑day limit aa. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators the ceasefire meant “the 60‑day clock pauses or stops,” asserting Trump would have “all of the authorities necessary” to recommence strikes without a new vote in Congress mirror +1.

Legal experts and many lawmakers rejected that interpretation. Former State Department legal adviser Harold Koh likened the approach to inventing a “pause button” that does not exist in the statute, arguing the law does not allow resetting or suspending the clock once U.S. forces are engaged in hostilities timeskuwait. Senate Democrats, joined by a handful of Republicans, moved to force additional war‑powers votes and floated potential litigation, warning that rebranding the same conflict as a new operation to evade Congress would be an “illegal war” strategy newsukraine +1.

Strategy, Allies and the Risk of Escalation

Behind the naming debate lay a broader military and geopolitical recalculation. U.S. officials said the Pentagon had strengthened its regional posture since late February, adding at least one carrier strike group and rearming assets depleted in the first weeks of Operation Epic Fury aa. The U.S. blockade and Iran’s moves to halt or harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of global oil normally transits, turned the narrow waterway into the central pressure point of the standoff mirror.

Trump publicly framed his choice as “Do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever, or do we want to try and make a deal?” while dismissing Iran’s latest response as “a piece of garbage” with “approximately a 1% chance” that the ceasefire would hold aa +1. European allies, already angered by limited consultation before the war began, signaled deep concern that a fresh round of strikes under a new operation name would both escalate the conflict and further sideline Congress, while Gulf states weighed their own responses after absorbing Iranian missile and drone attacks moneycontrol.

The Bigger Picture

Whether or not “Operation Sledgehammer” is ever formally launched, the episode underscored how presidents can use bureaucratic tools — including operation names and contested legal readings — to stretch wartime authority beyond the bounds Congress intended. With U.S. forces still deployed in a volatile theater, oil markets on edge and allied trust strained, the fight over what to call the next phase of the Iran war doubled as a fight over who controls it, setting up a longer‑term clash between the executive branch and lawmakers over the future of the War Powers Resolution itself newsukraine +1.