The largest Middle Eastern conflict since the invasion of Iraq is forcing Congress to grapple with existential questions about when to assert itself in matters of war.
So far, there’s been some noise, but effectively a blank check for the Trump administration to wage its campaign in Iran. Republicans have been enthusiastic backers of regime change in Tehran and, as always, wary of antagonizing the grudge-prone President Donald Trump.
But with the cost of the Iranian conflict — in both human and fiscal terms — mounting by the day and instability rife throughout the Middle East, Congress will soon be faced with how or whether to engage with the conflict as a coequal branch of government.
Here are five questions we’ll be watching (and reporting on) in the weeks ahead.
Will Republicans get serious about oversight?
Senate and House GOP committee chairs have shown no urgency in getting public testimony from senior administration officials on the war, even amid questions about the administration’s goals, cost and motives behind the operation.
Instead, Republicans have cited frequent news briefings from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine, coupled with classified briefings on Capitol Hill, as good enough. They argue appearances by military leaders before Congress as part of the annual defense budget process will afford members opportunities to question officials.
This doesn’t seem tenable. Republicans held scores of hearings on the Biden administration’s shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan when the White House belonged to a different party.
“It’s really intolerable that we have had nothing so far,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “That pressure is just going to increase every day this goes on.”
Democrats have demanded public testimony from Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and, absent that, they are vowing to force a series of war powers votes that require floor debate.
Where do Democrats have leverage?
With the annual defense policy bill as one of the few must-pass bills this Congress, it could be used as a leverage point for Democrats to extract some concessions from the Trump administration on Iran.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, predicted lawmakers “will try to use various incentives within the NDAA to get” DOD to provide more information.
“What’s going on in Iran? What’s the plan in Iran? How much does it cost?” Smith told reporters Tuesday. “Yeah, a whole host of information that has not been readily provided to us.”
Democrats could also insist on concessions to get their support for an Iran war funding package, such as requiring testimony and or other requirements to make the war effort more transparent. But many Democrats right now are signalling they won’t support a funding request no matter what.
How will Republicans manage Trump’s proposed budget bonanza?
Trump says he will propose a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget for the upcoming fiscal year. That would be a 50 percent increase above current levels.
Getting this done will be a huge challenge for congressional Republicans, especially with the expected war funding bill now in the mix.
First up is the question of whether the war funding will count toward the $1.5 trillion goal. If not, some GOP spending hawks may push to have some of the Iran conflict funding paid for by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Then there is the question of whether the money should all be moved through the regular appropriations process or if the party-line, filibuster-proof reconciliation process should be deployed to enact some of the funding.
Some GOP lawmakers are already talking about using reconciliation for any war spending, but that will spur a more earnest push to offset the cost of the bill. That won’t be easy.
Do Ukraine backers assert themselves here?
A small — but powerful — bloc of Republicans continues to demand further U.S. assistance to Ukraine in its ongoing war against Russia. A funding package for the Iran conflict may be their best avenue to deliver these funds.
“The best way to reduce the need for defense in Europe is to degrade the threat posed by Russia’s military,” said Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). “We should support these efforts. We should immediately begin a crash program to take advantage of new production lines here in America.”
Look for other key Ukraine allies, like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), to make themselves heard on this issue.
How will the political winds blow?
GOP divisions over the war in Iran were thrust into the spotlight this week with the sudden departure of a high-ranking Trump administration official, Joe Kent, who cited opposition to the Iran campaign in his resignation letter.
Before that, public criticism of the effort largely came from conservative media commentators like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, and war powers hawks like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
Trump returned to the White House pledging he’d focus on domestic policy and steer clear of foreign wars. If the conflict in Iran doesn’t end quickly, the voting public could sour on Trump’s about face on military interventionism and register their displeasure at the polls during November’s midterm elections.
Congressional Republicans will be walking a political tightrope over Iran if the conflict doesn’t resolve itself soon, especially if the human and fiscal costs are high. On the flip side, a quick end to the hostilities that negate the Iranian threat could buoy the GOP in the midterms.
One political barometer to watch will be if at-risk Republicans begin to turn on Trump’s Iran mission, particularly as the administration sends more troops to the region and weighs boots on the ground options.
