Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
15JUN

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

3 min read
11:40UTC

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
G7 Leaders (ex-US)
G7 Leaders (ex-US)
Kananaskis ended without a joint communique for the first time in the body's history; Macron credited G7 pressure with speeding the ceasefire while Trump publicly denied the summit played any role. The split between US and European G7 partners over what the memorandum means for sanctions relief was the direct cause of the text failure.
Protection-and-Indemnity insurers
Protection-and-Indemnity insurers
London-based P&I mutual clubs declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings while the IRGC Strait Authority remained operational, making the passage commercially impassable regardless of the memorandum's terms. Shipping operators said they would wait weeks for on-water conditions to change before routing tankers through.
IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority
IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority
P&I mutual insurers declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings on 15-16 June while the IRGC's Strait Authority remained in operation, reducing actual transits to two vessels against a pre-war daily rate of 94. The corps' revenue-generating toll mechanism, created 5 May and collecting $1.5-2 million per VLCC in crypto, has not been stood down and cannot be dissolved by Ghalibaf's signature.
Israeli Cabinet
Israeli Cabinet
Netanyahu admitted he had not seen the memorandum's text but confirmed IDF forces would stay in southern Lebanon; Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone and National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the agreement 'does not bind us in any way'. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is the central unresolved variable in the Lebanon clause.
Iranian Majlis hardliners
Iranian Majlis hardliners
Around 60 MPs signed a letter demanding Ghalibaf explain the memorandum; Paydari faction MP Sabeti said the deal violates the Supreme Leader's red lines, and MP Aboutorabi argued the document carries binding obligations 'that cannot be resolved by simply changing the name'. President Pezeshkian defended the negotiators against accusations of betrayal, confirming the fracture inside Iran's political class.
US Vice President JD Vance
US Vice President JD Vance
Vance signed on 15 June and said the memorandum was 'not conditioned on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon' while also saying it 'envisioned a ceasefire that covers both Iran and Lebanon'. The two formulations are incompatible and hand Iran's foreign minister a ready-made violation claim before Geneva.