Congress Grapples With Costs and Strategy as U.S.-Iran Conflict Escalates

WASHINGTON (AP) — A tense and divided Congress confronted Trump administration officials Tuesday, demanding clarity on the strategic objectives and exit plan for a rapidly escalating military conflict with Iran that has already claimed American lives and threatens to draw the nation deeper into Middle Eastern turmoil.

The closed-door briefings for all House and Senate members, coming on the eve of a critical war powers resolution vote, highlighted the growing unease on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers pressed for answers on the shifting justifications for the preemptive strike, the risks of a prolonged war, and the potential for costly nation-building in the wake of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's death.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio faced sharp questioning over his evolving statements. A day after suggesting President Trump acted because Israel was poised to strike first, Rubio recalibrated, telling reporters, "The president determined we were not going to get hit first. It’s that simple." He framed the weekend's operation as a "unique opportunity" to deny Iran nuclear weapons, a goal he called non-negotiable.

The administration's pivot to a war footing has upended the legislative agenda and injected profound uncertainty into an already volatile election year. With at least six U.S. service members killed, the push for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over war declarations has gained momentum. Administration officials have privately hinted that supplemental funding requests will soon follow, testing the GOP's fragile congressional majority.

Senate Armed Services Committee hearings revealed stark partisan divides. Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine called it "very disturbing" that the U.S. may have been drawn into war based on Israeli readiness, a move past presidents resisted. Defense official Elbridge Colby countered that the campaign aimed solely to roll back imminent threats, insisting, "This is certainly not nation-building. This is not going to be endless."

Yet, President Trump himself acknowledged the uncertain path ahead, not ruling out sending ground troops and stating that potential Iranian successors to Khamenei were "mostly dead." His call for Iranians to "take back their country" contrasted with statements from Republican leaders like Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who asserted, "That's going to be largely up to the Iranian people."

Democrats, haunted by the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, voiced alarm. "I am more fearful than ever we may be putting boots on the ground," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) challenged how the offensive aligned with Trump's "America First" pledge to avoid foreign entanglements.

Even among Republicans, support showed early cracks. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) expressed conditional backing, warning, "My flag starts going up, the longer this goes... the more there’s boots on the ground." Practical concerns mounted as well, with offices fielding evacuation pleas from Americans in the region. "It's getting worse, not better," noted Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a veteran.

The impending war powers vote forces a historic reckoning. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries questioned spending "billions to bomb Iran," while Speaker Mike Johnson called restricting the commander-in-chief mid-conflict "dangerous." Some lawmakers suggested that if the resolution fails, a formal Authorization for Use of Military Force should be considered, compelling members to explicitly endorse the war.

"The reason why there’s so much consternation," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), "is because President Trump has not given us a clear reason... If he wants to declare war, that is the job and responsibility of Congress."

The debate echoes the post-9/11 era but unfolds in a fiercely polarized climate, with the nation's war-making powers and the future of U.S. engagement in the Middle East hanging in the balance.

Voices from the Public

Marcus Chen, Foreign Policy Analyst, D.C. Think Tank: "This hearing underscores a systemic failure. The administration's rationale continues to morph, which erodes strategic credibility and public trust. Congress must reassert its oversight role, not just for this conflict, but to restore the constitutional balance of power."

Sarah Jenkins, Veteran's Advocate, Chicago: "My heart sinks hearing 'this won't be endless.' We've heard that before. Every name added to the casualty list is a family shattered. Where is the plan for our troops? Where is the diplomacy? We're rushing toward a cliff."

David Park, Small Business Owner, Ohio: "I supported striking back after the attacks, but now what? The goalposts keep moving. First it was retaliation, then nukes, now 'regime change'? We're spending blood and treasure without a clear endgame. This feels like a tragic rerun."

Rebecca Vance, Professor of International Law, Boston: "The legal and moral ambiguity is staggering. Preemptive strike doctrine is being stretched beyond recognition. Assassinating a head of state and then disavowing nation-building is a recipe for chaos. This isn't strength; it's strategic incoherence with devastating human costs."

Associated Press writers Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.