Follow us on social

google cta
Bipartisan lawmakers rush to battle stations after Iran attack

Bipartisan lawmakers rush to battle stations after Iran attack

Lawmakers who sat on sidelines as more than 33,000 Gazans killed want to join Israel in facing down 'disproportionate' response by Tehran

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Members of Congress who have said little to nothing about the over 33,000 Palestinians dead amid Israeli bombs and artillery — two-thirds deemed innocent civilians — in retaliation for the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that resulted in the deaths of 1,200 Israelis, are swiftly calling the Iranian drone and missile attacks Saturday night a “disproportionate” response by Iran.

Iran was responding to the killing of seven of its officials in what has been deemed to be by many (except most pro-Israel Western countries) an illegal Israeli strike on the Iranian consultate in Syria on April 1. Saturday’s response by Iran has been called highly choreographed to send a message, even limited, and it was. After the missiles and drones started to fly, the Iranians literally broadcast that their message to Israel had “concluded.”

On Sunday morning, the Israelis and the U.S. reported that 99 percent of the more than 300 projectiles had been shot down by U.S. and Israeli defense systems. There were no deaths, but a seven-year-old girl remains in hospital with life threatening injuries. Her home in the Negev Desert was hit with falling shrapnel from an intercepted missile.

That hasn’t stopped howls from both Democratic and Republican members, many of whom have sat on the sidelines as tens of thousands of Gazans have been punished for Hamas’s attacks — killed, maimed, starved, displaced, or left unfound under the rubble. The Palestine Red Crescent Society said this week that some 1,000 children in Gaza have lost one or both of their legs. There were an estimated 17,000 children left unaccompanied and alone, as of February.

By all accounts on the ground, there is very little for Gazans to go back to if and when the attacks there ever stop. But Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), wants you to know that what Iran did on Saturday night was “terrorism” and “disproportionate” and a threat to "the free world."


Suddenly, it is as if dozens of AIPAC-funded members of Congress from both sides of the aisle were liberated to unleash self-righteous indignation at Iran, rushing to X and dutiful cable television cameras to outdo even themselves.

Here’s Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn (top AIPAC recipient) calling on President Biden to launch our own strikes against Iran:

Here’s New York Democrat Rep. Ritche Torres (another tippity-top AIPAC recipient):

GOP Sen. Roger Wicker (another top beneficiary of AIPAC and highest ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee) had this to say in a statement Saturday: “this is the moment for the United States to show we stand together with our allies. Our shared enemies, including Iran and their proxies, need to know our commitment is unwavering. We must join with Israel to ensure that Iran’s aggression is met with resolute action and resounding strength."

Here’s Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) saying he disagrees with news that Biden has actually drawn the line on offering Israel offensive assistance in any new Israel attacks against Iran:

It is no question that Iran funds Hamas and works closely with its leadership. But after months of debate and discussion we still do not know definitively whether Iran directly helped to orchestrate the Oct. 7 attacks. More importantly we know now that Tehran has kept open communication with Washington to ensure that the war in Gaza does not spill out via its proxies in the Middle East. They have even kept pro-Iranian militias in check when it comes to attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria (which may be rescinded if certain lawmakers have their way and Washington gets directly involved in Israel's fight).

Yet a limited, consultative retaliation for the second assassination of one of its senior officers since Oct. 7 is the doing of “terrorists” and "fanatics" for whom Congress must drop everything to respond, even if it means putting our own military servicemen and women at risk in the region, if not the homeland.

Lastly, one should highly consider the opposite view when John Bolton is out there calling for the U.S. to literally fight Iran alongside Israel: Remember, he has been a key supporter if not planner behind every foreign policy/national security failure since 9/11.

If he didn’t have such a public beef with Donald Trump we could very well see Bolton on the other side of the White House or Pentagon fences again. But does it really matter, with the amount of agitation for confrontation among Democrats and Republicans today? Best grab your gas masks and food supply — this is your War Party, in high gear.


Sen. Marsha Blackburn (lev radin./Shutterstock); Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (shutterstock/lev radin) ;Sen. John Fetterman (shutterstock/OogImages)

google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.