Opinion: A war without consent

Published 1:30 am Thursday, March 26, 2026

Alaska’s congressional delegation is backing a war with Iran that most Alaskans did not choose, did not vote for, and will ultimately pay for. It is being sold as strength and necessity. In practice, it reflects a familiar pattern in Washington: alignment first, accountability later.

In speech after speech and vote after vote, Alaska’s representatives invoke “deterrence,” “credibility,” and “decisive action.” The words are consistent. The strategy is not. There is no clearly defined mission, no realistic endpoint, and no transparent accounting of cost. Support has preceded scrutiny.

That pattern is reflected in their votes. In early March, Congress considered a War Powers resolution that would have required explicit congressional authorization to continue military operations against Iran. Alaska’s delegation opposed it, joining the majority that blocked the measure and preserved the president’s ability to wage war without new approval from Congress.

That vote was decisive. It was the moment to insist on constitutional authority, defined objectives, and limits on escalation. Instead, Alaska’s delegation chose continuity over constraint.

The responses that followed were not identical. Senator Murkowski’s statement after the vote stands apart. She called for Congress to draft and debate an authorization for use of military force, demanded oversight hearings, and acknowledged that the president should have sought congressional authorization before striking Iran at this scale. Those are the right instincts.

But instincts and votes are different things. Murkowski voted against the only enforcement mechanism available while calling for the very accountability that resolution was designed to produce. Calling for hearings after blocking the measure that would have compelled them is not oversight. It is a statement of preference without consequence.

Senator Sullivan and Representative Begich offered no such ambiguity. They issued statements of support for strikes on Iranian-linked targets but did not press for a formal authorization vote. When emergency defense funding tied to Middle East operations advanced, they supported it without conditions or requirements for review. Sullivan stated plainly that he has always supported the president’s authority under Article II to protect national security interests, regardless of party. That position is consistent. It is also a delegation of war-making authority the Constitution did not intend to be unconditional.

Where Murkowski has at least named the problem, Sullivan and Begich have not acknowledged one exists. Iran is framed as a threat that “only understands force.” Caution is cast as weakness. The result is not deliberation, but endorsement.

The consequences will not be felt in Washington first. They will be felt in Alaska. Instability in the Middle East drives energy volatility. Fuel prices rise. Shipping costs follow. In a state already burdened by distance and high costs, those increases are not marginal. They are immediate and significant. Yet the delegation has paired its support for the war with no targeted effort to offset those impacts, no push to shield Alaska’s households, fishing fleets, or small businesses from predictable economic fallout.

The strategic risks are equally clear. Military action invites response. Response invites escalation. What is presented as a limited strike has evolved into a sustained conflict, often without a deliberate decision to cross that threshold. The failed War Powers vote demonstrated how easily oversight gives way to acquiescence. No firm constraints. No defined limits. No requirement for reassessment. This is how wars grow: incrementally, with diminishing accountability.

The war is framed as necessary to defend national security and project strength. But for Alaska, the connection between those claims and direct benefit is uncertain. The costs, by contrast, are immediate and tangible. Higher fuel prices are not theoretical. Supply disruptions are not abstract. Deployment orders are not rhetorical. The effects of conflict, even fought thousands of miles away, are real in a state where economic margins are already thin.

Representation requires more than agreement with executive policy. It requires independent judgment and a willingness to question before committing to war. Senator Murkowski has gestured toward that standard. She has not yet met it. Senator Sullivan and Representative Begich have not gestured toward it at all.

Alaska’s tradition of independence demands more, a delegation willing to place constituent interests above political alignment, and to insist on a clear purpose, a defined scope, and a credible path to conclusion before the next commitment is made.

Those standards have not been met.

Not one more blank check. Not one more endorsement without conditions. And not one more war carried forward in Alaska’s name without the clear consent of the people who will bear its consequences. That consent may be redefined in November.

Van Abbott is a long-time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations, and is now a full-time opinion writer. He served in the late 1960s in the Peace Corps as a teacher.