Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
25MAY

Senate rejects Iran war-powers vote 49-50; Murkowski crosses first time

3 min read
13:55UTC

The Senate rejected the seventh Democratic resolution to halt Operation Epic Fury by a single vote, 49-50, on 13 May; Lisa Murkowski became the first Republican to cross, citing the administration's failure to brief her after the 60-day War Powers Resolution deadline passed.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Three Republicans have now voted yes on war-powers resolutions; one more would flip the Senate against Operation Epic Fury.

Operation Epic Fury, the US Iran air campaign that began on 28 February 2026, passed the 60-day deadline set by the War Powers Resolution (the 1973 US law requiring congressional authorisation for sustained military action) without a signed authorisation on 13 May. The Senate voted 49-50 on the seventh Democratic resolution to halt the campaign, the closest result of the conflict 1 2.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted yes for the first time, joining Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania cast the decisive no vote, holding the line against progressive pressure from within his own party. Murkowski's stated reason was direct: "You've got a timeline that has taken us beyond the 60 days. I thought that perhaps we would get more clarity from The Administration in terms of where we are, and I haven't received it" 3.

Murkowski crossed having first exhausted the alternative path. She had built a bipartisan Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, a Congressional war authorisation instrument) alongside Senator Todd Young, targeting a 9 May filing with six limiting conditions. That AUMF remained unfiled , . Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's Article 2 testimony on 12 May had destroyed its political rationale by arguing the president needed no Congressional authorisation at all. Having spent weeks constructing a legislative vehicle the White House then publicly dismissed, Murkowski moved to the only option still on the floor.

Six prior resolutions failed by double-digit margins; three Republicans have now crossed. Four would win. The Republican coalition sustaining the war in the Senate is now one vote from a binding resolution at precisely the moment the diplomatic track is running on verbal assurances without signed paper.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

In the US, a 1973 law called the War Powers Resolution says the president must get Congress's approval to keep troops in combat for more than 60 days. That 60-day deadline passed on 13 May. The Senate voted to stop the Iran war: 49 senators said yes, 50 said no. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, voted to stop it for the first time. One more Republican vote would flip the result. But for now, the war continues legally under a White House argument that the president doesn't need Congress's permission at all.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over Nixon's veto in 1973 precisely because the text alone could not compel executive compliance: enforcement relies on political costs, not legal mechanisms. With Fetterman's no-vote providing the margin at 49-50, those political costs have not yet cleared the threshold that would force executive action from the Trump administration.

Murkowski's path from AUMF to war-powers yes vote is a secondary causal chain: she built a bipartisan authorisation vehicle, the White House then legally argued the vehicle was unnecessary via Hegseth's Article 2 testimony , leaving her with only the Democratic floor option. The administration's legal move foreclosed its own moderate Republican off-ramp.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    Three Republican crossings have now been documented; four would produce a 51-49 majority for the war-powers resolution. The next vote's Republican target is the undeclared swing senator, not a repeat of the three who have already crossed.

    Short term · 0.74
  • Risk

    Without Congressional authorisation through the 1 June WPR deadline, Trump faces no legal compulsion to seek authorisation; but a 50-50 tie or 51-49 pro-resolution vote would produce the first binding Senate signal against the war, affecting allied confidence and market pricing.

    Short term · 0.69
  • Precedent

    Kosovo 1999 established that an administration can continue an unauthorised air campaign past the WPR 60-day mark with Article 2 authority; the 2026 parallel extends that precedent to a named Hormuz blockade, which Kosovo never involved.

    Long term · 0.71
First Reported In

Update #97 · Chips for Beijing, no paper for Iran

Time· 14 May 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Senate rejects Iran war-powers vote 49-50; Murkowski crosses first time
Six previous war-powers resolutions failed by double-digit margins; the gap is now one vote, with three Republicans having crossed, meaning the Senate majority supporting the war is thinning at the same moment Trump's diplomatic track is stalling.
Different Perspectives
Lloyd's of London
Lloyd's of London
The Joint War Committee left Hormuz war-risk premiums at $10-14 million per voyage on 25 May, declining to move on Brent's 5% fall. The JWC's protocol requires a UN Security Council resolution or bilateral government certification letter before de-listing, and neither has arrived: a verbal understanding does not satisfy the formal condition the reinsurance market's treaty terms require.
Gulf Arab producers
Gulf Arab producers
Saudi Arabia and UAE depend on Hormuz for their own crude exports; Aramco CEO Nasser has warned no oil market recovery arrives until 2027 if the blockade continues past mid-June. Monday's $98.96 Brent settlement shortens nothing for Gulf producers without a signed instrument and a Pentagon mine-clearance timeline that runs up to six months post-ceasefire.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar holds $12bn of frozen Iranian assets at the centre of the sequencing dispute but cannot release them without explicit US Treasury authorisation, given the original freeze was a US instrument. As the asset-holding state, Qatar's leverage is real but passive: it is the escrow holder, not the decision-maker, and any resolution requires US Treasury sign-off that Trump has withheld.
Pakistan
Pakistan
With both Prime Minister Sharif and army chief Munir simultaneously in Beijing on 25 May, Pakistan has for the first time consolidated its civilian and military mediation tracks under China's roof. Munir's direct Tehran-to-Beijing flight signals that the security and financial threads of the sequencing problem are now being worked in parallel rather than sequentially.
China
China
Beijing hosted Pakistan's principal mediators and Iran's China envoy Ghalibaf simultaneously on 25 May while its banking regulator capped new state-bank lending to five sanctioned refiners. China is simultaneously the most credible third-party underwriter of the $12bn sequencing and the state whose institutions face live OFAC secondary-sanctions exposure if the deadlock persists through GL V's expiry.
United States
United States
Trump posted on 24 May that the blockade holds until a deal is certified and signed, ruling out the informal MOU structure both sides had been building. The 'certified, and signed' condition is the first operational bar Trump has attached in 87 days, but it arrived without an executive instrument, maintaining the gap between posted ultimatum and signed US policy.