WASHINGTON — Senators seemed split along party lines over future military action in the Middle East after a classified intelligence briefing on Tuesday afternoon. Democrats called for increased clarity on the objectives and justifications for attacks, while Republicans supported the Trump administration’s current plan.
The conflicting reactions came as both the House and the Senate are scheduled to vote on a war powers resolution on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. If passed, the resolution would limit further military actions in Iran without congressional approval.
Most Republicans criticized the measure and said that Congress should not take authority away from the president.
“We don’t need 535 commanders-in-chief,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday. “The commander in chief is the president of the United States, and he has a duty in Article Two to be able to protect American interests, and he is initiating that and doing that with great authority and great effect.”
Democrats criticized the president for striking without congressional approval.
The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but dictates that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
“Nobody gets to hide and give the President an easy pass or an end run around the Constitution,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said regarding the war powers resolution. “Everybody's got to declare whether they're for this war or against it.”
President Donald Trump launched strikes on Iran early Saturday morning. As of Wednesday morning, over 1000 people, including six U.S. service members, have been killed in the conflict, reported CBS News. Trump and members of his administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, offered conflicting justifications for the war and different estimates of how long it might last.
Democrats expressed worry over the lack of clarity from the Trump administration.
“They have shifting goals, different goals all the time, different answers every day,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Tuesday. “And I'm truly worried about the mission. There's no set plan being here day after day. ‘We're going to do this, this, this and this,’ and these are the reasons why you end up with an endless war.”
Schumer added that the answers given during Tuesday’s intelligence briefing were "unsatisfying."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed Schumer’s concerns about the unclear objectives.
“I am more fearful than ever after that briefing that we may be putting boots on the ground and that troops in the United States may be necessary to accomplish objectives that the administration seems to have,” said Blumenthal. “But I also am no more clear on what priorities are going to be of the administration going forward, whether it is destroying the nuclear capacity of the missiles or regime change or stopping terrorist activities.”
Blumenthal added that the “administration owes it” to the American people to release information about the Iran war.
Republicans came out of Tuesday’s briefing praising the administration and its objectives.
“They want to make sure that the ability for them to strike us anywhere at any time is gone,” said Mullin. “No way they'll be able to make a nuclear weapon or enrich uranium again. To take out their navy so they can't disrupt commerce in the shipping lanes, and to take out their ability to restock and rebuild their missiles and drones. That's the objective here.”
Mullin added that the U.S is “going to eliminate the threat that’s been threatening us for 47 years,” which “no other president was willing to stand up against Iran and eliminate it like President Trump.”
Others, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., expressed similar confidence in the U.S. military's power.
“Who’s going to win a war between the Iranian regime and the United States? We are. We’re going to win this conflict,” Graham said.
Marissa Fernandez covers politics for Medill on the Hill.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.