On March 24, the U.S. Senate for the third time rejected efforts from Democrats aimed at terminating the country’s military operations against Iran, allowing President Donald Trump to continue the conflict, according to The New York Times. The conflict has drawn in countries across the Middle East and faced criticism from both national and Wisconsin lawmakers.

The Senate voted 53-47 to block the war powers resolution that requires congressional authorization for continued military strikes. Similar attempts to stop the offensive in Iran had been rejected earlier in the month. The votes largely split along party lines, with most Republicans backing Trump’s military campaign and most Democrats supporting the effort to halt it, according to The Hill.

Together, the votes signaled that the Republican-controlled Congress is unlikely to intervene in the administration’s strategy, even as some lawmakers question the scope of presidential authority in the conflict, according to The Times.

The vote effectively allows the administration to continue the campaign, University of Wisconsin Ambrose-Hesseltine professor of U.S. military history John Hall said in the context of the March 18 vote.

“It amounts to a kind of sanction for the Trump administration’s military operations against Iran,” Hall said. “The practical effect is that the administration has essentially backdoor sanction from Congress to continue to prosecute this war.”

While foreign policy decisions are made at the federal level, the conflict has prompted responses from Wisconsin officials.

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., called for public hearings March 18 examining the administration’s strategy and the financial costs of the war, according to WisPolitics.

“Wisconsinites deserve to know why this administration is spending billions of dollars on a war with Iran instead of investing in our schools or lowering the cost of groceries, health care and rent,” Baldwin said in an email statement. “That’s why I’m calling on [Senate Majority Leader] Thune to hold public hearings and force the Trump Administration to make their case to the American people.”

State Rep. Randy Udell, D-Fitchburg, also criticized the congressional votes in a March 9 press release.

In the release, Udell said lawmakers who opposed the resolution failed to uphold Congress’s constitutional responsibility to determine when the U.S. enters war.

Udell also condemned the humanitarian and financial toll of the conflict, saying more than 1,000 people have already been killed and billions of dollars have been spent on military operations in the early stages of the campaign, according to the press release.

The previous resolutions were unlikely to pass given the current Republican majority in both chambers, making the effort largely symbolic, Hall said. He said the proposals served as an attempt by lawmakers, particularly Democrats, to reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over war-making and challenge what they see as an expansion of presidential power.

Moreover, Democrats pushed for a vote in order to formally record those in support of the war, according to UW political science professor Jon Pevehouse.

Many Republicans voted against the March 18 resolution provisionally, registering concerns about the scope of the war, according to Pevehouse.

“[Republicans] noted they would keep an eye on it — in short, ‘we’re okay with it now, but we reserve the right to change our mind,’” Pevehouse said in an email. “Whether that comes to pass or not will be a function of how long the war lasts.”

Though the administration has not given a clear planned duration of conflict to the media, the initial expectation was to achieve success with short-term military application, according to Pevehouse.

Presidential administrations closely monitor public opinion and economic indicators such as fuel prices when evaluating the domestic impact of military operations, according to Hall. Nonetheless, the administration appears to be sacrificing political backlash in the states for potential military gains in the Middle East, Hall said.

“At the moment, I think the president is holding course,” Hall said. “The administration is likely hoping it can achieve something that looks like a clear national security accomplishment before the political costs begin to outweigh the benefits.”

The debate over congressional authority reflects a longstanding tension between Congress and the presidency. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, but presidents from both parties have repeatedly ordered military operations abroad without formal declarations, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The tension can dissipate when one political party controls both branches, according to Hall.

“If the same party controls Congress and the executive branch, the system of checks and balances the framers envisioned can weaken,” Hall said.

According to Hall, although state and local officials have limited ability to directly influence foreign policy decisions, public opinion can still play a role in shaping how conflicts unfold.

A spokesperson for the College Republicans at UW, who requested to remain anonymous, defended the administration’s actions and framed the campaign as a response to authoritarian governments abroad.

“President Trump and Secretary Rubio saw thousands of progressives take to the streets last year demanding ‘No Kings,’” the spokesperson said. “They took decisive action and removed evil dictators from power in Venezuela and Iran as a result.”

Public engagement is critical for conflicts like this, according to Hall. The framers of the U.S. Constitution believed responsibility for national defense ultimately rested with the citizenry, who were expected to scrutinize the nation’s decisions about war, according to Hall.

“[The founding fathers] believed the nation they were founding would be less likely to wage unjust or foolish wars because the burden of those wars would fall on the citizens themselves,” Hall said.

With an all-volunteer military, most Americans bear little direct burden from war, according to Hall. At a minimum, citizens should fulfill their civic duties and participate responsibly in their government, according to Hall.

Hall said the responsibility includes staying informed and avoiding apathy or reflexive political reactions when evaluating military conflicts.

“The worst thing Americans can do right now is assume this doesn’t involve them,” Hall said. “They have to take the time to study it, ask questions and seek information from a variety of sources.”

UW College Dems did not respond to a request for comment.