Trump repeats that he is 'not happy' with Iran as deadline to seek approval for war looms

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has argued that the clock is paused on a deadline to seek approval from Congress for the US-Israeli war with Iran even as questions about whether a deal is any closer remain unanswered on Friday.

Friday is the 60th day since Trump formally notified Congress of the strikes against Iran on 2 March. US law requires a president to "terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" within 60 days of such a notification - without Congress' permission.

A senior administration official said hostilities with Iran had "terminated", emphasising a ceasefire has been in effect since early April.

Despite the ceasefire, the two sides have not yet reached a longer-term deal via talks, though Iranian media reported a new proposal from Tehran sent to Pakistan on Friday.

Iranian state ​news agency IRNA reported that a proposal for negotiations with the US was sent to Pakistan intermediaries. The news agency did not publish the details, and it's unclear if the proposal has reached the US.

President Trump told reporters on Friday afternoon: "We just had a conversation with Iran. Let's see what happens. But, I would say that I am not happy."

He said a deal has been hard to reach in part because Iranian leadership was "very confused", after a number of its top military officials were killed in the war.

Trump said he was briefed with options by US Central Command on Thursday, ranging from "blast the hell out of them and finish them forever" to "make a deal".

Oil prices, which have increased sharply since Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, dropped after news of Tehran's latest offer.

The key shipping channel is still effectively closed - causing economic impacts around the world.

Hegseth defended the administration's position on the deadline and ceasefire during questioning from members of the Senate, or upper chamber, on Thursday.

"We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire," he said.

The questioner, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, responded: "I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow, and it's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration there."

The relevant piece of US law, the decades-old War Powers Resolution, makes certain requirements of a president "within sixty calendar days" of their use of US armed forces within a combat.

It requires them to end the use of those forces unless Congress makes a formal declaration of war or allows the president an extension, up to 30 days in length, for the "prompt removal" of troops.

The legislation was passed in 1973 to limit the ability of then-President Richard Nixon to continue waging war in Vietnam.

A senior Trump administration official said: "For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28 have terminated."

The official highlighted that the initial two-week ceasefire had been extended, and said that there had been no exchange of fire between the US and Iran since 7 April.

Some experts have questioned the Trump administration's interpretation of the legislation and whether legally a ceasefire is in effect.

"The secretary's claim about hostilities coming to an end does not match up to the evidence," said Prof Heather Brandon-Smith, from Georgetown University Law in Washington DC.

"Hostilities have not ceased. The US has instituted a blockade of Iranian ports. This is an act of war. This is hostility," she said.

Brandon-Smith added that although the War Powers Resolution does not define "hostilities", the term was deliberately used to capture a broad range of conduct.

The US blockade of Iranian ports "are clearly acts of hostilities that were intended to and do come under the War Powers Resolution," she said.

Brandon-Smith stated that even if a ceasefire is legally in effect, it would not stop the clock on the 60-day timeframe.

"A ceasefire is not a permanent end to the conflict," she said. "To my mind, a permanent end to the conflict is what would actually sort of close up the 60 days."

Elisa Ewers, a national security and foreign policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, agrees.

"Even though there is a temporary ceasefire, US personnel are still in harm's way," Ewers said.

"Implementing the U.S. blockade is not without risk, and itself is hostilities. Given the fragility of the ceasefire and President Trump's own messaging about resuming strikes on Iran, there is a risk that they may need to use force, and they have been and remain in hostilities," she continued.

"If you moved all the assets that were introduced for these offensive operations out, and then at some point in the future decided to reintroduce them back in to conduct operations, would that reset the clock? Theoretically, probably," she said.

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn on Friday, Trump said the War Powers Resolution has "never been adhered to".

"Every other president considered it totally unconstitutional, and we agree with it," Trump said, adding that "many presidents" have exceeded the 60-day mark.

The BBC's US partner, CBS News, reported that administration officials were in active conversations with members of Congress about gaining congressional authorisation for the war.

In the case of Iran, Democratic-led attempts in both chambers of Congress to constrain Trump have repeatedly failed. Democrats have vowed to continue their efforts, saying the attempts are an opportunity to get lawmakers' views on the record.

Most Republicans have opposed the Democratic efforts - though some have signalled they could reconsider their positions beyond the 60-day period.

Conflict was sparked across the Middle East after the US and Israel launched wide-ranging strikes on Iran, killing the country's supreme leader. Iran responded by launching attacks on Israel and US-allied states in the Gulf.

The US and Israel have led Western opposition to Iran's nuclear programme, claiming the country is seeking to develop a nuclear bomb - something Tehran has vehemently denied.

US media have given conflicting accounts of the options now being considered by Trump.

Hegseth also sparred with Democratic lawmakers in the House during another hearing on Wednesday.

During that session, one of the defence secretary's top officials revealed that the operations in Iran had cost the US some $25bn (£18.5bn) so far.

Meanwhile, many Republicans on the House committee expressed support for the Pentagon, with congressman Carlos Gimenez of Florida saying he believed Iran was an existential threat to the US.

"When someone tells me for 47 years that they want to kill us, I think I am going to take them at their word," he said. "I support our efforts to make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon."