Democrats Warn of ‘No Endgame’ after Classified Iran War Briefing
The lawmakers say the White House has not clearly explained why the United States entered the war with Iran, what its long-term goals are, or how long the war might last.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) speaks during a press conference with other Senate Democrats on President Trump’s proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, in Washington, DC on March 6, 2025. Photo by Anadolu Images.
S
everal Democratic lawmakers in the United States Senate say they are increasingly concerned about the direction of the war with Iran after attending classified briefings from officials in the administration of Donald Trump.
The lawmakers say the White House has not clearly explained why the United States entered the conflict, what its long-term goals are, or how long the war might last.
Following the latest closed-door briefing on Tuesday, several senators called for public hearings to allow Americans to better understand the scope and strategy of the military campaign.
“I just came from a two-hour classified briefing on the war,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told reporters.
“It confirmed to me that the strategy is totally incoherent,” he said, adding that Congress has not been properly consulted about the war.
Murphy argued that if the administration had formally sought congressional authorization for the war, it likely would not have been approved.
“If the president did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to seek authorization for this war, he wouldn’t get it,” he said. “The American people would demand that their members of Congress vote no.”
Classified briefings raise concerns
Since the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on February 28, senior administration officials have provided several classified briefings to members of Congress about the military campaign.
Among those briefing lawmakers were Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Because the meetings are classified, lawmakers are restricted in what they can publicly disclose.
However, several Democrats said they left the briefings frustrated, arguing that officials did not provide clear answers about the war’s objectives, timeline or broader strategy.
Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said the administration’s messaging appeared contradictory.
“There seems to be no endgame,” Blumenthal told reporters after Tuesday’s meeting.
“The president, almost in a single breath, says it’s almost done, and at the same time, it’s just begun. So this is kind of contradictory.”
Some lawmakers have also raised concerns that the war could eventually involve a deployment of US ground forces in Iran.
“We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here,” Blumenthal said.
“The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform and the potential for further escalation.”
Questions over civilian casualties
Several Democrats have also demanded an investigation into a strike on a girls’ school in the southern Iranian city of Minab.
Reports indicate the attack killed at least 170 people, most of them children.
Six Democratic senators earlier this week called for a formal inquiry into the incident, amid claims that US forces may have been involved in the strike.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren raised concerns about both civilian casualties and the financial cost of the war.
“The one part that seems clear is that while there is no money for 15 million Americans who lost their health care, there’s a billion dollars a day to spend on bombing Iran,” Warren told reporters.
She said Congress could potentially use its budget authority to restrict funding for the war.
“The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse,” she said.
Republican support largely intact
Despite Democratic criticism, most Republicans in Congress have supported the military campaign.
Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in the Senate, with a 53-47 advantage, giving them significant control over what legislation or debates reach the chamber floor.
Some Republican leaders say the strikes are necessary to weaken Iran’s missile program and curb Tehran’s regional influence.
Brian Mast, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, publicly thanked Trump for launching the attacks.
He said the president was acting within his constitutional authority to defend the United States against what he described as an “imminent threat” posed by Iran.
Still, a small number of Republicans have voiced concerns about the war.
Republican Senator Rand Paul criticized the administration’s shifting justifications for the war.
“We keep hearing new reasons for war with Iran — none convincing,” Paul wrote on social media.
“‘Free the oppressed’ sounds noble, but where does it end?” he said. “War should be a last resort, not our first move.”
Republican Representative Nancy Mace also warned against sending US troops into another prolonged Middle East war.
“I do not want to send South Carolina’s sons and daughters into war with Iran,” she wrote in a post online.
Debate over presidential war powers
The growing dispute has revived a long-running debate in Washington over the limits of presidential authority to launch military operations.
Under the US Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. However, modern presidents have often ordered military action without formal congressional approval, citing national security threats.
Under the War Powers Resolution, a president can deploy US forces for up to 60 days without congressional authorization. After that period, the administration must obtain approval from Congress or begin withdrawing troops within an additional 30 days.
Some legal scholars say the war with Iran highlights tensions between executive and legislative authority.
David Schultz of Hamline University said the current conflict raises serious constitutional questions.
“You could argue that what the president is doing violates the Constitution by not being a formally declared war,” Schultz said.
“Or you could argue it exceeds his authority as commander-in-chief under the War Powers Act.”
The Trump administration has defended the February 28 strikes as a response to an “imminent threat” from Iran — a justification often used by US presidents to authorize military action without congressional approval.
However, US intelligence agencies had previously said they had no evidence of an imminent Iranian attack against the United States or its regional military facilities.
(Source: Aljazeera English)
