As campaigning for Texas’ tightly competitive U.S. Senate primary entered its final hours before Tuesday’s election, the war in Iran affected how candidates and voters discussed national security, even as many candidates avoided going into details amid fast-moving military action. In Waco, Schertz and Houston, the conflict appeared as a question that could shape support for President Donald Trump’s approach—yet also one that many politicians chose to mention cautiously.
Ken Paxton, the Republican state attorney general, drew attention Monday as he walked through his 15-minute remarks at a lunchtime event in Waco with scarcely any mention of Iran, his last campaign event before the election. Afterward, Paxton stood by Trump’s actions when asked about the strikes, while also describing limits on what he knew. He told reporters he had no information about the administration’s long-range plan, but he said the action would have little effect on what Trump has framed as the MAGA base, which the president promised he would avoid what he called “forever wars,” according to the account of Paxton’s comments.
Paxton also declined to answer a follow-up question about whether Trump had been clear in communicating the objectives of the strikes. “An open-ended war? I don’t have any intelligence, but I don’t think that’s Trump’s idea,” Paxton said, adding that “He wants to get this over with.”
At George’s Restaurant and Bar in Waco, several Paxton supporters said they applauded the administration’s actions. Connie Stamps of Waco said the strikes—described in the report as killing Iranian leadership—were “going to be good for the whole world,” and she said she was “very thankful we have a president who does what he says he’s going to do.” Stamps dismissed the idea that Trump was starting an overseas conflict he had campaigned against, describing him as “the peace president,” even as the report noted that Trump’s previous campaigns opposed prolonged foreign military entanglements.
In Schertz, a suburb of San Antonio, Cornyn also spoke about the election while touching lightly on the Iran conflict. The report said that during remarks he talked little about Iran, and later, when questioned by a reporter, Cornyn said he supported the attack that the Trump administration conducted without first getting congressional approval. When asked whether Trump had done a good job explaining the objectives for the war, Cornyn pivoted to the idea of congressional debate.
“We’ll have a debate in Congress what the goals and objectives are,” Cornyn said, while also adding that he was “completly satisfied in the president’s explanation.” He referenced Trump’s video announcement of the attacks, saying, “I think the president made a cogent and good explanation. I think there will be more debate.” The report also said Cornyn described how, aboard Air Force One last week headed to Texas, Trump asked members of the state’s congressional delegation for their thoughts on the strike, and Cornyn said they supported it.
At Cornyn’s event, voter views on the strikes diverged. Elton Hartwich, wearing a Vietnam veteran cap, said he supported the war and believed others should too, arguing that Americans should look back at what Iranians did to U.S. people. David Ozuna of New Braunfels said he did not support the strikes and believed Trump had not adequately explained his reasons or what would count as an acceptable resolution; Ozuna connected his view to family members who died and were wounded while serving in the military.
Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, running against Rep. Jasmine Crockett for the party’s nomination, addressed the conflict differently, according to the report. At a rally at the University of Houston, Talarico lamented only the deaths of three U.S. service members killed, while the report said he referenced the conflict only lightly. Charles Padmore from Houston, however, criticized the strikes as “absolutely horrible” and said they “shouldn’t have happened,” arguing that the United States was “the aggressor.” Padmore said the strikes had not been justified in a way that made clear objectives and resolution, and he expressed concern the war could last for years if it lacked a clear exit strategy.
The report described candidates and voters as treading carefully partly because of what remained unknown about the attacks and the United States’ long-term plans, with some Republican remarks reflecting support for Trump’s decision while others focused on the demand for clearer communication about goals. With the primary heading into Tuesday’s vote, the war’s presence in the final days of campaigning reflected a split between those who praised the action and those who said they wanted more explanation before endorsing what could follow.