The United States is Formally at War with Iran, At Least the Swiss Say So

Why is the United States bombing Iran? The justifications presented for the jus ad bellum of Operation Epic Fury keep shifting: an imminent nuclear threat, security concerns, the need for regime change, and even political distractions such as the Trump-Epstein relationship. The legal basis is also not clear. At times President Trump has implied that the U.S. is at war with Iran—“We’re doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly.” Yet the conflict is usually presented as a “major military operation.” On one occasion, Trump even downplayed it further, calling the conflict “an excursion that will keep us out of a war.” There has been no formal U.S. declaration of war against Iran.

Switzerland has made a decision that the United States has avoided: for the neutral Swiss, the United States is at war. To be exact, while there is no formal public declaration phrased as “Switzerland declares the U.S. is at war with Iran,” Swiss authorities have officially treated the situation as an international armed conflict when applying their neutrality laws and policies.

Three weeks after the United States began bombing Iran, the Swiss Federal Council decided—citing Article 22a, Paragraph 2 of the Federal War Materiel Act—that exports of military equipment to the U.S. could not continue. “The export of war materiel to countries involved in the international armed conflict with Iran cannot be authorised for the duration of the conflict,” the government announced on March 20. The Swiss also noted that they would continue to monitor and evaluate the situation, leaving open the possibility of future adjustments depending on developments in the conflict.

(In 2025, the United States was the second-largest export market for the Swiss arms industry. Switzerland exported 94.2 million Swiss francs (about $119 million) in military goods to the United States, including 39.8 million francs (about $50 million) in combat aircraft components. No definitive licenses for the export of war materiel to Israel have been granted for a number of years.)

Although the United States has not formally declared war—a process requiring a vote by Congress and not enacted since World War II—the Swiss government concluded that its neutral status applies when a trading partner is actively engaged in an international armed conflict. Under that determination, war materiel exports to the United States cannot be authorized. Switzerland has also denied U.S. requests to overfly its airspace, including two requests for reconnaissance aircraft.

Switzerland’s decision underscores a critical distinction between the political language some states use to describe military action and the legal standards applied by neutral countries. In the U.S.-Iran case, Switzerland determined that the conflict meets the threshold of war for purposes of export restrictions and airspace neutrality, regardless of how the United States labels its operations.

Is the fact that the United States has not formally declared war significant? Absolutely. The lack of congressional approval for sending troops into combat reflects the expanding use of executive power to deploy the military and the diminishing checks by the legislative branch. It also highlights the tension between national policy decisions and international legal norms.

Formal War, Combat Operations, and the Limits of Executive Power

The Swiss determination reflects a longstanding tension in U.S. military policy: the gap between constitutionally declared war and modern combat operations. Historically, the United States has engaged in major conflicts without invoking a formal declaration of war. In modern times, the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq invasion relied on congressional authorizations and executive prerogative rather than a constitutional declaration of war. Avoiding the formal label allows greater operational flexibility.

The Vietnam War provides a clear precedent: despite more than a decade of large-scale combatoperations—approximately 543,000 American troops were in Vietnam in April 1969— Congress never formally declared war, and presidents relied on executive authority and the dubious Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to escalate operations.

This historical pattern of non-declaration of war helps explain why Switzerland’s strict legal recognition of the Iran conflict matters. While the U.S. maintains a degree of operational ambiguity about the status of its military operations, neutral states may impose concrete legal and ethical constraints. By recognizing the conflict as war under its Federal War Materiel Act, Switzerland has shown that third-party states can impose legal constraints even on powerful allies when the conditions of armed conflict are met. In this sense, Switzerland’s stance can be seen as a corrective mechanism, enforcing international norms in a way the U.S. self-definition of “combat operations” does not.

Significantly, even without a formal declaration of war, the U.S. remains bound by international humanitarian law (IHL), including the Geneva Conventions. U.S. forces are obligated to adhere to these rules regardless of how the conflict is politically described. Despite statements by Trump such as—”I don’t need international law,” or “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me”—there are rules and obligations on all states in a conflict. The Geneva Conventions are among the most universally accepted norms; they were ratified by 196 countries.

International humanitarian law protects civilians and civilian objects during armed conflict, including infrastructure essential to civilian life. Against that standard, U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure are flagrant violations of IHL. As Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, warned in a statement: “War on infrastructure is war on civilians. It must stop.”

 The experiences of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, and drone campaigns in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia demonstrate the devastating consequences of military operations ambiguously labelled as combat missions. They underscore the importance of applying the requirements of international humanitarian law in times of combat. Switzerland’s recognition of the Iran conflict as war reinforces the principle that neutral states can apply legal and ethical standards ensuring some accountability, however limited that may be.

Finally, the U.S. avoidance of formal war declarations raises deep democratic and institutional concerns. The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, yet successive administrations have relied on executive authority and limited authorizations to conduct military operations. This centralizes military decision-making in the presidency, bypasses legislative processes, and transfers legal and moral responsibility farther away from citizens.

When the Senate again rejected an effort to invoke the 1973 War Powers Act to require congressional authorization for continued military operations against Iran, Senator Cory Booker criticized his colleagues’ inaction: “All of us—all one hundred of us—swore an oath not to a president, not to a party, but to the Constitution of the United States. And yet in this moment the United States Senate is doing nothing.” In the same debate, he also blasted both parties for allowing the president to wage war without congressional approval: “Congress has become feckless when it comes to war powers…we are ceding our constitutional responsibility and letting one person decide questions of war and peace.”

In the end, Switzerland’s strict, neutral, legal recognition of the war against Iran stands in stark contrast with the United States’ legal ambiguity and lack of congressional authorization. While the U.S. labels its actions as “combat missions” to preserve executive flexibility, the Swiss interpretation reminds the world—and the United States—that war is a legal and moral reality with tangible consequences.

Switzerland’s stance illustrates that even allies can enforce limits on military action. War cannot be wished away, and Switzerland reminds the United States that legal and moral obligations exist, no matter what label is applied.

The post The United States is Formally at War with Iran, At Least the Swiss Say So appeared first on CounterPunch.org.