The News
President Donald Trump is receiving wildly divergent guidance from a splintered Republican Party as he weighs a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Sen. Lindsey Graham and other hawks have told Trump to “finish the job,” even if it means the US taking military action against nuclear facilities, according to the South Carolina Republican.
Then there’s the more nuanced view of Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., a former Navy SEAL who likened the current moment to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. He wants to prevent Iran from gaining access to a nuclear weapon but said it’s “completely unrealistic” for Republicans to argue the US can bomb Tehran’s enrichment facilities at Fordow and call it a day.
“Wars are messy. They’re long and they’re unclear. Rarely will one single action spell the end of a conflict. Us taking out the nuclear capability, I don’t think it’s the endgame,” Sheehy told Semafor moments after sparring with a protester. “As the president said, as pretty much everyone agrees — even that crazy Code Pink lady — I don’t want them to have nuclear weapons.”
Though he stands nearly alone, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is sending a harsher warning: that a pre-emptive strike would be unconstitutional and could draw the US or its allies into a messy war.
The cacophony of voices reflects a Republican Party that’s fractured over how closely to align with a president who has reshaped its ideology in his image. Even as the GOP divides over potential entanglement in the Middle East, the decision to more fully join Israel’s campaign in Iran is Trump’s alone. And most of the party will follow him, whatever he chooses.
He insisted Wednesday afternoon that he wants to avoid “long-term war” and seems unconcerned about those who might be “a little bit unhappy now” over the possibility of the US getting more directly engaged.
“I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That’s it,” Trump told reporters Wednesday.
One Pentagon official told Semafor that there was “no indication” bombing action was close as of Wednesday, pointing to low US critical munitions reserves as “a significant, even primary concern” that could deter a quick strike in the end.
Meanwhile, his White House is seeking counsel from a wide range of advisers, and senators like Graham and Sheehy, as he considers a move that could reshape the course of his presidency. They’re also hearing from what one Republican lawmaker called “so-called influencers who have no influence.”
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and The War Room’s Steve Bannon are making clear that they’re against direct US military involvement against Iran (Trump said Carlson called him to apologize).
But other pundits who have the president’s ear, like radio host Mark Levin and Fox News’ Sean Hannity, are more on the side of US involvement, to say nothing of GOP hawks in Congress who have long doubted that diplomacy with Iran can work.
In fact, Trump’s sheer openness to striking Iran shows how far his version of “America First” has come from its non-interventionist origins. There are plenty of signs that Trump is listening to GOP hawks more than one might assume for someone who selected JD Vance as his vice president.
Trump “carries great respect” for the likes of older-lines Republican pundits like Levin and Fox News’ Sean Hannity, “perhaps more so” than more non-interventionist types like Charlie Kirk and his vice president, said a person close to the administration.
The president is seeking to “maintain flexibility, freedom of action. And I think now he realizes the costs for a strike are lower than they ever have been,” the Republican lawmaker said.
“If he wants, he can order strikes on Fordow, be sure that he’s caved it all in — and at the end of it say: ‘I consider the matter closed, we’re done with offensive operations in Iran,’” the lawmaker added.
Know More
Inside the administration, officials aren’t completely aligned about next steps and what the broader implications might be.
A sign of that debate: Trump held a Situation Room meeting on Tuesday afternoon that lasted just under an hour and a half, and came and went without any apparent final decisions on further US involvement.
A second Situation Room meeting was planned for later Wednesday; Trump said he’d made no final decision but “has ideas of what to do.”
In between, Trump’s gotten plenty of advice.
“If we have capability, Israel doesn’t have to finish the job; we should finish the job. Diplomacy was offered; it didn’t work,” Graham said. “I’ve encouraged the president to provide Israel with what they need to finish the job. And if we need to fly as part of it, fly.”
Many aides are very wary of getting ahead of Trump given his unpredictability. And plenty of senators are signaling they’d be happy to back him if he decides to get in deeper — even as far as the regime change he says he doesn’t want.
“If this is the opportunity to do it and the best military advice recommended to the president is to bust those bunkers, then bust those bunkers and get the leadership out of Tehran. And give the Iranian people a chance to be free,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
Sheehy said he sees the US as already engaged in conflict with Iran, given its constant presence in other military conflicts on the opposing side and its stated goal of destroying America.
No matter which way Trump falls on the weighty decision, Sheehy added, “based on what he’s done so far, I’ll support him 100 percent either way.”
“What I don’t want to see us do is see Israel get to 90 or 95% of the job done, and then the last piece that could probably end all of this doesn’t happen, because we’re not willing to engage a country that’s said they want to destroy us,” added Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.
The View From Democrats
Trump would have at least one prominent Democratic backer if he attacks Iran: Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who’s unabashed in his support for a pre-emptive strike on nuclear facilities.
The president might have more, depending on his sales job. An all-senators briefing is now scheduled for next week, according to an aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
“This is a momentous decision, and I don’t begrudge him taking the time to figure it out. I share the goal of making sure that Iran never possesses a nuclear program,” said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “We’re getting conflicting views on that from Tulsi Gabbard and the president; it’s difficult to know who to believe.”
He coined his own term for Trump’s position, calling it “unstrategic ambiguity.”
Room for Disagreement
For the few overt non-interventionists like Paul in the GOP, the risks of striking Iran are clear. The Kentuckian warned it could lead to more entanglement, whether the president likes it or not.
“Who’s going to occupy Iran? You think the Israelis will be welcome occupiers in Iran? Do you think Americans would be welcome occupiers of Iran? Nobody would be,” Paul said.
Burgess and Shelby’s View
Forecasting Trump’s decisions is always a fool’s errand, and his public statements on Wednesday only underscored his opaque approach. Summing up his will-he-or-won’t he sentiment, he said Wednesday: “I may do it. I may not do it. No one knows what I’m going to do.”
If Trump does strike Iran, the vast majority of his party in Congress is going to support the initial effort to cripple nuclear capability. Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., are certain to dissent, but that otherwise will be a fairly limited crew of Republicans.
Trump’s support in both parties — and his presidency — could hinge on what happens next. There are few signs of support for a spiraling war in the Middle East after Iraq and Afghanistan, even as Republicans circulate polls showing their supporters want the US to support Israel.
Notable
- Steve Bannon predicted that if Trump does decide to strike Iran, the MAGA wing opposing it will ultimately “get on board.”