The U.S. and Israel carried out strikes on Iran Saturday, and the decision put President Donald Trump’s “America First” framing—built in part on past opposition to wars pursued through what he has portrayed as dubious rationales—under immediate political and strategic pressure. The action also highlighted how Trump’s warnings during earlier campaigns about sending troops overseas appear to diverge from how his presidency now speaks to the possibility of casualties and continued military steps.
The underlying rationale Trump used for the strike centered on deterrence: he argued the action was necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons or developing missiles capable of reaching the U.S. The Associated Press report also said U.S. intelligence has assessed Iran’s weapons capability was substantially degraded.
The stakes for Trump’s political message hinge on the length and follow-through of any conflict. In the report, the concern is not only whether the first days go smoothly, but whether events drag on and demand sustained U.S. attention. Michael Rubin, a historian at the American Enterprise Institute who worked as a staff adviser on Iran and Iraq at the Pentagon from 2002 to 2004, said the key question was whether Iran’s aim is to “outlast America,” and whether Trump’s approach would allow Iran to recover and claim victory.
Congressional reactions split along familiar lines. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, speaking at a campaign stop near Houston, said, “Hopefully lives will not be lost needlessly, but this always entails risk,” and argued that “we know that Iran will not stop unless the United States and our allies stop them.” Other Republicans praised the military action while also signaling that public questions would need answers, including Sen. Todd Young of Indiana.
Yet opposition also surfaced quickly among longtime critics of overseas entanglements. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky lamented what he described as “another preemptive war,” and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene rejected Trump’s warnings about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, writing online that it was “always a lie and it’s always America Last,” and that this time it felt like the “worst betrayal” because it came from Trump.
The debate inside Republican ranks also intersects with elections and shifting expectations for how a president who attacked drawn-out wars in earlier bids should respond once in office. The report said Trump’s moves Saturday reflect a decade-long transformation from the candidate who in 2016 called the Iraq War a “big, fat mistake” to a president who now warns Americans to prepare for potential casualties overseas and encourages Iranians to “seize control of your destiny.” The report also described how the strikes contrasted with Trump’s 2024 campaign warnings that his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris, was surrounded by “war hawks” eager to send troops overseas.
The Associated Press report also pointed to how little advance preparation the administration offered Americans for a dramatic action. It said Vice President JD Vance told The Washington Post earlier this week there was “no chance” the U.S. would become involved in a drawn-out war like Iraq, and that during Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump devoted only a few lines to Iran, arguing Iran and its proxies have “spread nothing but terrorism, death and hate.” The report said this short runup contrasted with how the Iraq War’s argument was laid out years earlier, including then-President George W. Bush naming Iraq as part of an “axis of evil” in January 2002 and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell making a case to the United Nations in February 2003.
For some Republicans, the strategic and communications work may now shift from authorizing the strikes to explaining what comes next. Andrew Kolvet, appearing Saturday on “The Charlie Kirk Show,” said there was “a sense that this was not sold to the American public sufficiently,” while also suggesting there could be an “opportunity on the backend.” Kolvet nevertheless said President Trump had earned what he described as “a big, long leash,” adding “Not an unlimited one. But a very long one to make tough decisions.”
Public sentiment appears split between concern about Iran and limited trust in Trump’s judgment. The report cited an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted this month saying about half of U.S. adults were “extremely” or “very” concerned that Iran’s nuclear program poses a direct threat to the U.S. It also said 61% described Iran as an “enemy” and that only about 3 in 10 Americans said they have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of trust in Trump when it comes to relationships with adversaries and the use of military force abroad.
Democrats, meanwhile, saw a political opening focused on oversight and war powers. The report cited Maine Gov. Janet Mills and Graham Platner competing for the Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent Sen. Susan Collins in the fall, with both issuing statements Saturday pressing Collins to increase oversight of the administration. The report said Collins was one of three Senate Republicans who backed an unsuccessful war powers resolution last month that would have limited Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks on Venezuela, and that Democrats said Saturday they would quickly seek a similar proposal tied to Iran. Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said that if the U.S. were to start “a war where we begin to lose American lives, that starts changing the political calculus,” even as he noted Democrats could face their own vulnerabilities if a domestic terror attack occurs while the Department of Homeland Security is closed as Democrats demand changes to immigration operations.
For now, the report said Trump is offering little detail on the longer arc of the conflict. In a social media post Saturday evening, he said bombings could continue “as long as necessary.” Whether that language becomes a short-term escalation or a longer campaign is expected to shape how voters and lawmakers measure both the administration’s strategy and its fit with the president’s earlier criticism of drawn-out foreign wars.