In Washington, GOP stands by Trump on Iran

Following a highly specialized bombing raid carried out against Iran on Saturday, Republican lawmakers who believe the United States should stay out of overseas engagements—as well as those who had hoped to see the country take a stronger position as an international leader—called the attack a success.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, said he believes Iran’s response proved the mission’s effectiveness. Lawler has backed every bill supporting Israel and has defended sending funds to Ukraine even as other Republicans remain wary of increased entanglement in foreign conflicts.

“Look, this was a moment by which to act and to eliminate the threat. Obviously, you see how Iran has responded with a symbolic strike, and you see how quickly they are seeking a ceasefire. That wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t take action,” Lawler said.

Aside from one key voice of dissent, House Republicans’ stand solidly behind the Trump administration’s approach to Iran despite inconclusive evidence about the strike’s effectiveness. For the moment, the president seems to have escaped the politically thorny path between supporting Israel and keeping his campaign promise of avoiding overseas entanglements.

Israel first struck Iran on June 13 after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran had failed to stay below its agreed upon level of uranium enrichment. The attack, which eliminated key military and political assets, kicked off a 12-day conflict that ended with a ceasefire on Tuesday.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. attributed the peace to President Donald Trump’s decision to carry out the strikes.

“Overall, this is America First policy in action. For decades, presidents have talked tough on Iran—they’ve talked tough,” Johnson said at a news conference on Tuesday. “It was President Trump who did more than talk. He acted. The president secured a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, and despite the temporary disruption this morning, we believe that will hold.”

The terms of the ceasefire were seemingly violated when Israel launched a barrage of missiles against Iran hours after its implementation. Trump said the truce was still in effect and expressed strong disappointment in Israel’s attack.

Rep. George Latimer, D-N.Y., when asked whether he was confident the ceasefire would hold, said he did not know.

“I’m hopeful,” Latimer said. “Confidence is a word that is hard for me to know. This is serious stuff. We don’t want a land war. We do not want to commit American troops on the ground. And we don’t want a larger action that turns into a regional war. What was the status of the negotiations prior to the authorization to go in and drop the bombs?”

Latimer won a primary election last year against a fellow Democrat who took an anti-Israel stance. Like Lawler, he sits on the Middle East and North Africa subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

One Republican lawmaker, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., opposes military action in Iran. He introduced a motion to restrict the president’s further use of military force in Iran, using the procedure outlined in the War Powers Act of 1973. The act was originally passed by Congress to rein in the Nixon administration and its covert bombings of Cambodia. In theory, the law gives Congress the power to limit the president’s ability to escalate hostilities abroad.

The resolution has 60 co-sponsors, including anti-Israel Democrats such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Massie is the resolution’s lone Republican signatory.

If passed, the resolution would affirm that Congress has not declared war on Iran and instruct the administration to refrain from engaging in any further military operations in the country.

At a news conference on Monday, Speaker Johnson said he hoped Massie would squash the resolution.

“I talked to him on the floor last night and I said, ‘Listen, in light of the ceasefire, if the ceasefire holds, you would agree that the War Powers Act is now a moot point.’ And he said, ‘Yeah probably is.’ So, we may not have to act upon that,” Johnson said.

On the resolution itself, Johnson says he not only disagrees with its use, but also with the law behind it.

“Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I am persuaded by that argument. They think it’s a violation of the Article II powers of the chief. I think that’s right,” Johnson said, referring to the authority the Constitution gives the president to act as the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces.

Asked what his hope is for the continued conflict between Israel and Iran—as well as the place of the United States in that picture—Latimer says that depends on the results of the mission.

“Do we have an accurate report about how much damage the bombs did? It was asserted that they were dropped that night [and] that we have obliterated their program. Well, we don’t know that yet.” Latimer said, “What I do know is there is a tendency to proclaim victory and success because people want to hear victory and success.”

Appearing at a NATO summit on Wednesday, Trump hinted that the United States might have only a partial understanding of the damage to Iranian enrichment facilities. He called the intelligence “inconclusive.”

Lawmakers had been set to receive a briefing on the situation later on Tuesday, but that classified session was postponed for later in the week.