Republicans send mixed signals on Trump's Iran war objectives

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump cast aside his anti-war persona by ordering U.S. military strikes on Iran and helping Israel decapitate the Islamic Republic’s government, leaving Republican lawmakers in a lurch to defend him with a number of contradictory statements.

The U.S. commander in chief on Monday, as the conflict spread across the Middle East, cited a need to take out Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, missile systems, navy and ability to support violent proxy groups.

But, speaking from the White House’s East Room at the start of a Medal of Honor ceremony, he also hailed the decapitation of a “terrorist regime” that he dubbed “sick and sinister.”

He also cited frustration with Iranian officials’ negotiating tactics in talks that were ongoing as recently as late last week: “We thought we had a deal, but then they backed out. And they came back, and we thought we had a deal. And they backed out.”

Trump said he decided to strike because “you can’t deal with these people.”

Republicans fanned out in the hours after U.S. and Israeli aircraft and ships on Saturday began pounding targets inside Iran, leading to the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, to defend Trump’s decision.

But their statements did not neatly align, leaving the administration’s end goals very much in question.

Jonathan Panikoff, a former National Intelligence Council official, on Monday said “there is confusion” about the administration’s strategic rationale and goals inside Iran.

“There are challenges in terms of who is in charge and engaged in decision-making on the Iranian side,” he said during a briefing call hosted by the Atlantic Council, where he is director of the think tank’s Middle East Security Initiative.

Administration officials and their Capitol Hill allies have done little to explain a clear long-term vision for what might come next in Iran. Trump, notably, did not respond to reporters’ questions on Monday as he left the East Room. A Reuters-Ipsos survey conducted over the weekend found that 27% of respondents approved of the strikes, with 43% opposed.

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott, a member of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” program that the administration’s long-term strategy was based largely on hope.

“I hope we can get this done in the next month. It all depends on … whoever the leader is, the new leader is in Iran. Do they care about their people, ever? We know the ayatollah didn’t care about the people. He just … killed tens of thousands, in just these protests just recently,” Scott said.

“So, hopefully, somebody will show up that cares about the people of Iran and says ‘enough’s enough,’” Scott added. “We want to get back and be part of the world economy and give opportunity to all the people of Iran. That’s what all of us would like.”

Surviving Iranian government officials and spokesmen, during television interviews over the weekend, said a constitutional process already was underway to select a new supreme leader.

Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican Foreign Relations Committee member, was clear on Sunday that he understood the ultimate objective was to take out Khamenei and many other senior government and military officials.

“I spent the entire day with President Trump on Friday, right before he launched these attacks,” he told CBS, referring to traveling with Trump on Air Force Once for a trip to Corpus Christi to speak about energy prices. “He and I discussed this at length on Friday.

“My counsel to him was that the Iranian regime has never been weaker, that it was teetering and now was the time. My advice was do not miss this opportunity,” Cruz said. “I think the president has acted boldly. He’s acted decisively, and Iran no longer being led by a theocratic, murderous dictator, that makes America much, much safer.”

But Scott said Sunday the “objective is to stop their short- and medium-range missiles,” adding: “If we didn’t, our troops, our servicemen and women would have been at risk all throughout the Middle East, including our ally Israel.”

‘Regime sure did change’

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent mixed signals Monday about the administration’s overall top objectives. He said the administration wanted to essentially neuter the Islamic Republic’s missile arsenal, nuclear program and navy.

But he also suggested decapitating Iran’s government was also a top goal, saying, “This is not a so-called regime change war, but the regime sure did change and the world is better off for it.”

That came after Trump, in a video posted Sunday evening, said of Khamenei: “Last night, all over Iran, the voices of the Iranian people could be heard cheering and celebrating in the streets when his death was announced. The entire military command is gone as well, and many of them want to surrender.” During that address, Trump did not mention Iran’s nuclear and missile programs until he was wrapping up.

Then there was Florida GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Foreign Affairs Committee member, who declared in a Sunday X post: “The United States is not trying to play kingmaker in Iran. Our objective is clear: protect American lives, defend our service members, and prevent a wider war.”

“This is not about choosing Iran’s next leader or forcing regime change. It is about addressing threats to U.S. security while keeping the door open to a negotiated end to Iran’s nuclear enrichment,” she added.

A number of Democratic lawmakers have slammed the president for starting a war in the Middle East —something he railed against most of his modern predecessors for doing or continuing.

“There was no imminent threat to justify starting a war with Iran. Instead, Donald Trump chose the path of more chaos — with American lives on the line,” Sen. Adam B. Schiff of California, a former House Intelligence Committee chairman, wrote on X.

The House and Senate could vote this week on war powers resolutions that would bar additional military action in Iran without congressional authorization, though the odds of enacting a binding measure of that sort appear scant.

Matthew Kroenig, vice president of the Atlantic Council, said on the same call that if Trump begins to feel political pressure over questions about his justification for the air-based war: “I think they could go home at any time and declare this a success.”

“I think they think they’ve achieved several of their major objectives,” Kroening said, noting one of America’s “major adversaries” has been greatly weakened and U.S. and Israeli forces had “degraded the nuclear and missile programs,” adding: “I think there are a lot of outcomes they’d be satisfied with” that could lead to Trump suddenly “declaring victory and just going home.”

_____