Tehran [Iran], May 1 (ANI): Iran's Supreme Court Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei has asserted that Tehran has maintained a continuous channel for talks with the United States, despite the ongoing military tensions.

'We do not welcome war, but we are not afraid of it,' the Chief Justice remarked, according to the state broadcaster Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). He further emphasised the country's resolve, stating, 'If our dignity is threatened, we will fight for our dignity; this is the firm position of our nation.'

Elaborating on the Islamic Republic's diplomatic stance, Mohseni-Ejei noted that while Iran 'always welcomed negotiations', any such engagement must be 'based on logic and rationality.'

In a report by the Tehran-based state media outlet, the Chief Justice made it clear that Iran would not submit to external pressure during diplomatic exchanges. 'We certainly do not accept imposition. An enemy that has not achieved any of its goals and objectives through aggression and threats cannot be imposing or demanding at the negotiating table either,' he maintained.

Beyond the diplomatic arena, the Chief Justice indicated that Tehran is preparing a formal legal response to the actions of the United States.

As per the official Iranian broadcaster, Mohseni-Ejei confirmed that the judiciary intends to seek accountability for the conflict. 'We will pursue and punish war criminals and obtain compensation from them,' he declared.

This legal and diplomatic defiance comes as the administration of President Donald Trump has maintained that the United States is 'not at war' with Iran, even as the military engagement reaches a pivotal legal threshold under the War Powers Resolution, establishing a potential confrontation between the White House and Congress.

House Speaker Mike Johnson stated on Thursday that authorisation from Congress is not required at this juncture, according to a report by NBC News.

Johnson argued that the US is not involved in active hostilities, telling the outlet at the Capitol, '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.'

When questioned about the 60-day limit set by the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which expires this Friday, he was categorical, stating, 'We are not at war.'

The 1973 statute stipulates that a president must withdraw American forces from hostilities within 60 days unless a formal authorisation is granted by Congress.

President Trump officially informed lawmakers of the military campaign on 2 March, making 1 May the critical deadline. As no such authorisation has been secured, the situation has sparked concerns of a constitutional standoff. While the law permits a 30-day extension, it remains uncertain if the President will utilise that provision.

Central to the White House's legal position is the argument that a current ceasefire effectively halts the War Powers timeline.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth informed a Senate hearing that the cessation of active combat alters the legal requirements. 'I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that. However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which, in our understanding, means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire,' Hegseth noted.

This interpretation has met resistance from Democrats, who contend that the law does not allow for such a pause.

Senator Tim Kaine remarked, 'I do not believe the statute would support that,' further adding, 'I think the 60 days runs (out) maybe tomorrow, and that's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration there.'

The legal debate is further underscored by President Trump's own descriptions of the military action, which have varied throughout the conflict.

During the initial strikes on 28 February, he warned that 'the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.'

By March 9, he suggested that 'the war is very complete, pretty much,' and later characterised the mission as 'both' a war and a 'little excursion.'

In subsequent remarks during March, the President hinted at avoiding the specific terminology of war because 'you are supposed to get approval' from Congress. Nonetheless, by mid-April, he stated, 'I had to go to a war.'

In a recent interview with Newsmax on Thursday, he continued this ambiguous rhetoric, noting that the stock market reached record levels 'during the war, or the military operation, whatever you'd like to call it.'

The hostilities began on 28 February following coordinated strikes by the US and Israel against Tehran and other regional targets, leading Iran to respond by striking US bases and Israeli positions.

Opposition lawmakers argue the administration is on precarious legal footing in light of these events.

Senator Adam Schiff stated that the 60-day mark is the moment many colleagues may join efforts to bring the engagement to a close, noting that 'after two months of war, thirteen service members' lives lost, and billions of dollars squandered, it is time we recognised that the price we have paid is already too high.' (ANI)