Tehran, May 1 — Iran’s Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei said Tehran has kept an ongoing channel open for talks with the United States even as military tensions persist.
Mohseni-Ejei told state broadcaster IRIB that Iran does not welcome war but will not be intimidated by it, stressing that the country will defend its dignity. He said, “If our dignity is threatened, we will fight for our dignity; this is the firm position of our nation.”
Describing Iran’s diplomatic stance as willing to negotiate, the chief justice warned that any discussions must be “based on logic and rationality” and rejected the idea of accepting imposed conditions. “We certainly do not accept imposition,” he said, adding that an adversary that has failed to achieve its aims through force cannot expect to dictate terms at the negotiating table.
Beyond diplomatic channels, Mohseni-Ejei said Iran’s judiciary is preparing legal measures in response to U.S. actions. “We will pursue and punish war criminals and obtain compensation from them,” he declared, indicating Tehran will seek accountability and reparations through legal proceedings.
The remarks come as the U.S. administration maintains it is “not at war” with Iran, even as the confrontation raises questions under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. That law requires the president to end U.S. forces’ participation in hostilities within 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued action.
House Speaker Mike Johnson told NBC News he does not believe congressional approval is required at this stage, arguing that the U.S. is not engaged in active hostilities. “I don’t think we have an active, kinetic military bombing, firing, or anything like that. Right now, we are trying to broker a peace,” he said, and reiterated, “We are not at war.”
President Trump notified lawmakers of the military campaign on March 2, making May 1 the key 60-day deadline. With no explicit congressional authorization yet secured, some legal and political observers worry a constitutional standoff could develop. The statute allows a 30-day extension, but it remains unclear whether the president will invoke it.
A central element of the White House legal argument is that a current ceasefire effectively pauses the War Powers clock. U.S. official Pete Hegseth told a Senate hearing that, in the administration’s view, the ceasefire means the 60-day timer “pauses or stops.” Democrats disputed that interpretation, saying the statute does not provide for such a pause. Senator Tim Kaine said he does not believe the law supports that reading and warned the 60 days may expire imminently, posing a significant legal question.
The debate is complicated by President Trump’s shifting characterizations of the military action. After initial strikes on February 28, he warned of potential U.S. casualties, later described the operation at times as a war and at other times as a more limited mission, and at one point suggested avoiding the term “war” to sidestep the need for congressional approval. By mid-April his language acknowledged the gravity of the campaign.
Hostilities began on February 28 after coordinated strikes by the U.S. and Israel against Tehran and other regional targets, prompting Iranian strikes on U.S. bases and Israeli positions in response. Opponents of the administration’s approach argue the legal footing is uncertain. Senator Adam Schiff warned that the 60-day deadline could prompt colleagues to act to end the engagement, saying that after two months of conflict, the loss of service members, and large expenditures, it may be time to reassess the costs.
Note: This report is based on a syndicated feed and is published as received. The Tribune assumes no responsibility or liability for its accuracy, completeness, or content.
