Follow us on social

google cta
51761615853_c2706a3196_b

First lethal blows, but still no unified call for war in Congress

In fact, a resistance to hawkish claims that Biden must bomb Iran is forming on both sides of the aisle

Reporting | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

Calls for President Joe Biden to take direct military action against Iran are ratcheting up following this weekend’s drone attack in Jordan that killed three U.S. service members and wounded over 30 others.

Biden has said that “it was carried out by radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq” and vowed “to hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing.” Tehran has denied involvement in the attacks.

This is the latest major escalation in the Middle East since Hamas’s incursion into Israel on October 7, and Tel Aviv’s retaliatory war on Gaza. The Biden administration has maintained that it does not want a war with Tehran and that it continues to seek paths to de-escalation in the region — but following the first known deaths of U.S. personnel since the war in Gaza started, members of Congress are pushing for a swift response.

“The United States can and must respond to this brazen attack,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), in a post on X.

“This attack on U.S. and coalition troops in Jordan — our steadfast regional partner — is an escalation, and cannot go unanswered. I support President Biden in a deliberate and proportionate response,” added Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Some Republican hawks, many of whom are long-time advocates of regime change who have been calling for an aggressive response against Tehran since October 7, went a step further, calling for a direct confrontation with Iran.

“The only thing the Iranian regime understands is force. Until they pay a price with their infrastructure and their personnel, the attacks on U.S. troops will continue,” Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), wrote in a long thread on X. “Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.”

“The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East,” added Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) “Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward unworthy of being commander in chief.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services committee, said that Washington must strike “directly against Iranian targets and its leadership.”

But not all members, including Republicans, want to lurch headlong into war. And not all of them think the president has the unilateral authority to do so. The administration was already conducting strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen without seeking congressional approval, drawing harsh criticism from a bipartisan host of senators and House members.

Some of those lawmakers renewed their calls over the weekend, insisting it is Congress’s responsibility to declare war.

“There is no ‘Iran is bad’ exception to the Constitution,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) wrote on X. “If we’re going to war, Congress must declare it.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), agreed, writing on X that “[b]ombing Iran would require an Act of Congress according to the Constitution.”

“Is there anyone you don’t want to bomb?,” he later added, in response to Lindsey Graham’s X thread.

Observers of the GOP say that this is evidence of a growing divide within the party on questions of foreign policy. “War with Iran is a red line. Any who advocate for it have the mark of a failed, American old guard,” Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, tells RS. “On the Republican side, the choice is stark and obvious: a total rerun of the failures of the Bush years— pitted against a new party that is actually reckoning with that disaster and offering a foreign policy tailored to the interests of Americans.”

On the other side of the aisle, several Congressional Democrats are warning against further escalation.

“To the chicken hawks calling for war with Iran, you're playing into the enemy's hands—and I’d like to see you send your sons and daughters to fight," Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), an Iraq War veteran, told Reuters. "We must have an effective, strategic response on our terms and our timeline."

"We can’t allow the deaths of U.S. service members to go unanswered – but we also can’t give in to the war hawks who look for any reason to go to war with Iran. Direct confrontation with Iran will certainly lead to the deaths of more U.S. service members and could easily expand into a regional conflict," added Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.). "I urge President Biden to proceed thoughtfully and carefully with a strategic, proportional response that avoids unnecessary escalation. We also must continue to pursue a permanent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas – not only to bring all the hostages home safely and get humanitarian aid into Gaza, but also to end the war that’s emboldening Iran.”

How exactly Biden will respond remains unclear. Axios reported on Monday that top U.S. officials were discussing "significant military response," though Axios and a number of other major media outlets say that the administration is still keen to limit the potential of a wider war.

High level talks are reportedly continuing over a potential ceasefire proposal in exchange for the release of Israeli hostages. “We’re hopeful about progress, but … we should not expect any imminent developments,” said the national security council spokesperson, John Kirby, said at the White House press briefing on Friday. The Axios report from Monday noted that some Biden administration officials acknowledge that a ceasefire is a crucial piece of reducing regional tensions.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) continues to insist that a cessation of hostilities in Gaza is the only way to prevent that regional conflagration from happening, writing on X that her “calls for ceasefire have always been about saving lives - in Gaza, Israel, and the region, and preventing a larger conflict. My heart goes out to the US service members who have lost their lives, and their loved ones. This must end.”


President Joe Biden with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (White House photo)
President Joe Biden with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (White House photo)
google cta
Reporting | Washington Politics
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS
Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

Middle East

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Hundreds of people attend a pro-democracy demonstration against U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., U.S., on February 28, 2026. Demonstrators cited a number of reasons for their opposition to Trump, including his involvement with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, ICE raids, authoritarian policies, and today’s bombing of Iran. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto) via REUTERS CONNECT

How does this war with Iran end? Or does it?

QiOSK

Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?

There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.

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.