Renewed US Air Strikes in Yemen Deemed 'Unconstitutional' by Advocacy Groups

The ongoing series of intense US air strikes on Yemen, which began on March 15, have come under heavy criticism for being 'unconstitutional,' as various political advocacy groups argue that such military actions require congressional authorization, which the Trump administration did not seek. This assertion derives its foundation from both domestic and international legal frameworks, specifically the US Constitution’s Article I and the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR), which grant Congress the sole authority to declare war. Additionally, the United Nations Charter stipulates that any war should be either for self-defense or authorized by the UN Security Council, a criterion these strikes allegedly fail to meet. The advocacy groups, including Dawn, Action Corps, and Just Foreign Policy, argue that these military operations do not serve US interests and are not justifiable as acts of self-defense. Concurrently, the Biden Administration's more 'surgical' strikes from January 2024 to January 2025 are suggested to have had a lower civilian casualty count compared to the Trump era. Nonetheless, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) continues its operations in the region, now sanctioned by the White House to strike offensively without pre-approval, despite the strong opposition. Criticism also points towards potential ulterior motives linked to geopolitical tensions between the Houthis, Israel, and the Gaza situation. This narrative is reinforced by increased hostilities from the Iran-aligned Houthis, reportedly targeting various international shipping routes. These developments highlight the complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, underscoring the necessity for diplomatic resolutions as emphasized by the UN Special Envoy to Yemen. This analysis and commentary have been reviewed by artificial intelligence, reflecting on both factual occurrences and strategic implications of the US's continued military engagements in Yemen.