Follow us on social

google cta
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo), Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)  Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

The Capitol Hill Republicans against US war with Iran

They may be a minority, but these conservatives are bucking the old guard and warning Trump of pending disaster

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

Even as polling indicates that a majority of Trump voters don't want to go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel, it’s been difficult to change GOP minds on Capitol Hill.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t strong conservative voices trying to do just that.

Indeed, some Republicans have come out swinging against the prospects of the U.S. joining Israel in their attacks against Iran. “This is not our war,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky) proclaimed in an X post where he invited colleagues to support his recently introduced War Powers Resolution, which would prevent the U.S. from engaging in any “hostilities” against Iran if passed. “But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) likewise called Republicans pushing conflict with Iran “war pimps.”

“I just don’t see American boys and girls going to a faraway land that many of us couldn’t even find on a map,” Burchett told CNN’s John Berman. “We do not need a three-front war in our lifetime right now. I just don’t think that’s the route to go. There’ll be room for debate, but I think we ought to let the president do his negotiating skills. That’s what I elected him to do.”

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a vocal supporter of Israel, nonetheless also voiced concern about the U.S. getting dragged into conflict. He told Manu Raju, CNN’s Chief Congressional Correspondent, that Israel could act in its own interests. But, he explained, “it’s a very different thing for us to then say, ‘We are going to offensively, affirmatively go strike Iran or insert ourselves into the conflict.’ That to me is — that's a whole different matter…I'd be real concerned about that.”

“I don't want us fighting a war,” Hawley said. “I don't want another Mid-east war.”

Along similar lines, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that “it’s not the U.S.’s job to be involved” in Israel’s war with Iran on NBC’s Meet the Press.

And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) warned that other conservatives’ hawkishness over war with Iran could “fracture” the MAGA movement. “Americans want cheap gas, groceries, bills, and housing. They want affordable insurance, safe communities, and good education for their children. They want a government that works on these issues,” Greene wrote on X Tuesday.

“Considering Americans pay for the entire government and government salaries with their hard earned tax dollars, this is where our focus should be. Not going into another foreign war.”

But while some Republicans want to put a red light on the lurch to intervention, many others are pushing explicitly to participate in it. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D,), for example, said he would support a U.S. decision to strike Iran, or otherwise "assist Israel in getting the job done."

Iran “pledged to wipe out the United States of America. I prefer not to let them get here…I prefer preemptive prevention of war rather than having to end one after it gets to our soil, right?,” Cramer asserted.

"Either you want [Iran] to have a nuclear weapon, or you don't," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters this week. "And if you don't, if diplomacy fails, you use force."

Could support for war come back to bite?

Observers tell RS that lawmakers pushing for war are holding onto dated foreign policy positions — even if such positions are increasingly diverging from the conservative base.

"Most Republican officeholders have not developed a foreign-policy outlook of their own. They take their bearings from what the old-guard conservative movement used to say and from what President Trump says now," Daniel McCarthy, syndicated columnist and editor of Modern Age journal, told RS. "It was similar in 2003, when most Republicans went along with George W. Bush’s Iraq War.”

As Jim Antle, Executive Editor of The Washington Examiner, told RS: “Congressional GOP hasn't caught up [with their base]. [There are] only small numbers of populists and libertarians. Old-school moderates are almost all gone. Those are the restraint-friendly elements of the party.”

"Also Trump is the main man," he added. "If he says bomb, we bomb. If he says peace, we are flipping the peace sign."

In comments to RS, McCarthy highlighted the story of the late Republican Congressman Walter Jones, who realized later in the Iraq War his previous support of the conflict was disastrous for his constituents, a military-heavy district in North Carolina. He was politically sidelined in Congress for his dovish change of heart.

“(He) did exactly what they are doing now. He went along with the zombie-like shuffle to war; he even coined the term 'freedom fries,'" McCarthy said. “But later he was ashamed of how easily he’d been led into supporting a policy that was disastrous for the country and his district. Jones would be horrified if he were alive to see his fellow legislators making the same mistakes. They can avoid that by learning from Jones’s experience.”

Jones’ career suffered because he recanted his Iraq war support. But McCarthy supposes that Republicans who are hesitant to speak against war with Iran might do well to consider the political risks of not speaking out against it.

“Republican officeholders too often believe there’s safety in a crowd, and it’s better to be wrong in a group than to be right on your own," McCarthy said. "But the public turned against the whole party because of Bush’s wars, and anything like a repeat of them will turn the force of populism against the GOP."


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Top Image Credit: Top photo credit: Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo) (Gage Skidmore/Flickr); Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect); Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)(Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons)
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela
Top image credit: LightField Studios via shutterstock.com

Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela

Military Industrial Complex

As the U.S. threatens to take “oil, land and other assets” from Venezuela, staffers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank funded in part by defense contractors and oil companies, are eager to help make the public case for regime change and investment. “The U.S. should go big” in Venezuela, write CSIS experts Ryan Berg and Kimberly Breier.

Both America’s Quarterly, which published the essay, and the authors’ employer happen to be funded by the likes of Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, a fact that is not disclosed in the article.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)

Ukraine's own pragmatism demands 'armed un-alignment'

Europe

Eleven months after returning to the White House, the Trump administration believes it has finally found a way to resolve the four-year old war in Ukraine. Its formula is seemingly simple: land for security guarantees.

Under the current plan—or what is publicly known about it—Ukraine would cede the 20 percent of Donetsk that it currently controls to Russia in return for a package of security guarantees including an “Article 5-style” commitment from the United States, a European “reassurance force” inside post-war Ukraine, and peacetime Ukrainian military of 800,000 personnel.

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.