As lawmakers prepared to vote on measures that would rein in President Donald Trump’s authority in the Iran conflict, tensions flared Tuesday at the U.S. Capitol over what lawmakers said was a lack of clear answers about why the administration chose to launch the operation, what its goals are, and how long the United States expects it to last.
The administration made its case for a second day in closed-door briefings with members of both chambers ahead of a looming war powers resolution vote, an effort that lawmakers described as intended to restrict Trump’s ability to continue the joint U.S.-Israel campaign against Iran. The briefing sequence and the competing public statements by administration officials have disrupted Capitol Hill’s political and policy agenda, as lawmakers tried to determine how the war could expand and what that means for Americans in lives and dollars.
Rubio, speaking to reporters at the Capitol, defended the administration’s decision as a response to the threat of being attacked first. “The president determined we were not going to get hit first. It’s that simple,” Rubio said in what the AP described as a testy exchange with reporters. Rubio also pushed back on comments he made a day earlier, when he suggested the move was tied to Israel’s readiness to act; he instead said the decision to attack this past weekend reflected what he portrayed as a unique moment with the best chance of success.
In the same exchange, Rubio said there was “no way in the world” that what he described as “this terroristic regime” would obtain nuclear weapons “under Donald Trump’s watch.” The remarks came as lawmakers pressed for a consistent rationale for the war and debated how the administration’s messaging about timing and purpose has shifted since it began.
Inside Congress, Democrats raised concerns about whether the conflict could broaden into a prolonged campaign and whether the United States could eventually commit ground forces. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer left the closed briefing and said he was concerned about “mission creep” in a long war. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, also a Democrat, said after the closed briefing that he was “more fearful than ever we may be putting boots on the ground,” echoing fears that the United States could move beyond its current role.
Senators also scrutinized prior statements about the administration’s reasoning for striking. The AP reported that senators grilled Trump officials during an Armed Services Committee hearing after Rubio’s Monday claim that the president, believing Israel was ready to act, decided it was better for the U.S. to launch a preemptive strike to prevent Iran’s potential retaliation on American military bases and interests abroad. Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, told the committee that it was “very disturbing” that Trump took the U.S. to war because he said Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to bomb Iran, adding that past U.S. presidents, he said, “have consistently said, ‘No.’”
Defense official Elbridge Colby told senators that the president directed the military campaign to destroy Iranian missiles and deny Iran nuclear weapons. Trump, however, disputed the idea that Israel forced the decision. In Oval Office remarks reported by the AP, Trump said, “I might might have forced their hand.” The AP also reported that Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Trump ally, said the president “did the world a favor,” while Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, pressed how the operation aligns with Trump’s “America First” promise not to commit U.S. troops to protracted campaigns abroad.
Other lawmakers raised questions about whether the administration has decided on an endpoint for the fighting. Warren demanded to know how the war fit with that promise, and Colby responded that “’America First’ and ‘peace through strength’ are served by rolling back — as the military campaign is designed to do — the threats posed,” adding, “This is certainly not nation-building. This is not going to be endless.” The AP also reported that Trump has suggested the war could drag on and has not ruled out sending American troops into Iran.
Outside the question of strategy, members of Congress said the war’s escalation has created immediate practical concerns for Americans trying to leave the region. Rep. Jason Crow, a Democrat and former Army Ranger, said, “It’s getting worse, not better,” referring to calls received by his office from Americans seeking help evacuating as the war spreads. Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican, told the AP he supports the operation “for now,” but said his “flag starts going up” the longer it lasts, including as the conflict involves more “boots on the ground.”
Lawmakers also questioned what leadership could follow in Iran after the death of the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who ruled for decades, and what leadership vacuum could mean for the regime and its people. Democrats warned against sending U.S. military troops into Iran in the wake of U.S. wars after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and the AP reported that Republicans, while applauding parts of the administration’s actions, raised concerns of their own as the conflict broadened.
As Trump urged Iranians to seize what he described as a unique opportunity to take back their country, he also acknowledged uncertainty about the plan, according to the AP. “Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” Trump said Tuesday, and he panned the idea of elevating Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran’s last shah. Republicans said the future of Iran should not be decided by Americans. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said, “That’s going to be largely up to the Iranian people,” while House Speaker Mike Johnson said flatly, “We have no ability to get into the nation-building business.”
The war powers votes have become a central point of dispute as lawmakers argue about what authority Congress should exercise during wartime. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries questioned the spending scale, saying, “Why are we spending billions of dollars to bomb Iran?” and said Democrats would provide strong support for a war powers resolution. Johnson said it would be “frightening” and “dangerous” to tie the president’s hands given that the U.S. is already engaged in combat.
With uncertainty increasing, some lawmakers suggested that if Congress does not restrain Trump through the war powers measure, it should consider an Authorization of the Use of Military Force requiring lawmakers to go on record with affirmative support. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said the consternation on her side reflects what she described as the lack of a clear reason for the operation. “The reason why there’s so much consternation on our side is because President Trump has not given us a clear reason why he is in Iran,” she said, adding, “If he wants to declare war on Iran, that is the job and responsibility of Congress under the Constitution.” The AP noted that former President George W. Bush sought and received congressional authorization for the post-9/11 wars.
The day’s closed briefings and open disagreements left lawmakers still pushing for a consistent narrative on the strategy and the end state, as the war powers resolution vote drew closer and the conflict continued to widen in the Middle East.