The fight over forever wars escalates as Congress pushes back against presidential overreach.

Something extraordinary has happened in the capital of the world’s most powerful country: For the first time in more than 40 years, legislators in the U.S. formally questioned the president’s unchallenged authority to launch a nuclear strike.

This is a reaction to the perceived unpredictability and temperament of President Donald Trump. In August, he threatened North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” In September, he casually suggested the U.S. might “totally destroy” it.

Congress promised to re-examine the authorization it gave President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2002 to hunt down al-Qaeda in retaliation for 9/11. It has been used – and misused – many times over in the past 16 years.

As Barbara Lee, D-California, the only member of Congress to vote against the original war authorization, pointed out, it has been used in 14 countries at least 36 times. The war powers, called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), have come into play “in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, drone strikes in Yemen, bombing in Libya, indefinite detentions in Guantanamo Bay and warrantless wiretapping here at home,” she said.

The AUMF gives the president carte blanche. He can target all “nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.”

Anything and everything becomes possible when a link is established (even if spuriously) to 9/11. Bush invaded Iraq on that pretext, mendaciously suggesting Saddam Hussein’s regime was linked to al-Qaeda.

Now, that 9/11 link may be used to tackle Iran, all within the remit of the AUMF. The CIA recently released documents that fortuitously appears to detail Osama bin Laden’s alleged appreciation of Iranian support.

Then there is the war in Syria. Defense Secretary James Mattis hinted the U.S. would maintain its military footprint in Syria long after ISIS is defeated there – even though hunting down 9/11-linked terrorists is the only justification allowed under the AUMF.

As for the war in Yemen, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly backed a resolution that deems American military refuelling and intelligence support for the Saudi-led air war in Yemen as not authorized. The resolution was not binding but it signalled bipartisan unease with the nation’s role in the war. The Obama administration used the AUMF as a legal basis to carry out airstrikes against al-Qaeda bases across Yemen. The Trump administration has ramped up engagement.

The need to reassess the AUMF is urgent. The growing bipartisan consensus in Congress to do so is good news, if only because it shows politicians are realizing the corrosive effects of a state of perpetual war. There is a deepening sense of futile overreach from the so-called war on terror.

The Trump administration is pushing back against the executive’s right to make war. If nothing else, such hubris is precisely the reason this authority must be regulated and supervised.

RASHMEE ROSHAN LALL is a regular columnist for The Arab Weekly. She blogs at rashmee.com