War with Iran. Trump's people are starting to have doubts. “A bit like Vietnam”
Many Republicans Privately, he has concerns regarding the risks to U.S. troops and global stability — as well as his own political career — if the military campaign drags on.
Some of these concerns have begun to surface publicly.
— Under the constitution, public opinion must be engaged before war begins, unless an attack is imminent. And inevitable means really inevitable – not something that lasted for 47 years — said Republican Congressman Warren Davidson (Ohio), a former US Army soldier, on Tuesday.
House member Eli Crane, a war veteran who served in the Iraq War and has in the past warned against regime change attempts, called the operation “a very risky, very dynamic situation”. At the same time, speaking on the Charlie Kirk Show on Monday, he made it clear that he would show Trump respect.
“I hope it will work,” he added. “Military operations like this can take an unexpected turn so quickly that it's dizzying.”
Republicans are torn
“Most Republicans want clear goals, clearer than they currently have,” says one House Republican member, noting that members have pressed GOP leaders and White House officials to be more consistent in formulating the administration's military goals.
Trump officials and top House Republican leaders have already taken steps to alleviate members' potential concerns. Johnson, for example, said after leaving Monday's classified briefing that “the operation will be completed quickly, by the grace and will of God.” “This is our prayer for everyone involved,” he added.
Growing concerns
A White House memorandum sent Monday to Republican members of Congress outlined several military goals for the bombing campaign. According to the document, Trump deserves “credit” for taking the fight to a hostile state that sponsors terrorism.
However, despite denying that Trump was working to change the regime, the memorandum also stated that the Iranian regime “will be defeated,” and included other conflicting information about the reasons for the raids — while also trying to sidestep the issue of whether the raids constituted a “war” (a word used by Trump himself).
A vote scheduled for Thursday on a bipartisan resolution on war powers has revealed some discomfort among Republicans, even as party leaders and White House officials urge members to vote against it — including those most at risk of losing their seats.
Congressman Thomas Massie, who co-chairs the war powers initiative with Congressman Ro Khanna, points to the White House memo as further evidence of the administration's incoherence. — So they're going to defeat a terrorist regime ruling a country of 90 million people, but it's not a war? – says.
Thomas Massie, February 9, 2026Heather Diehl / AFP
Stop Trump
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford said in an interview Tuesday that he did not believe a vote on war powers was necessary and that Trump was acting within his legal authority. Voting, he said, has become “a way for individuals to expressing dissatisfaction or making a political statement“.
Even if the war powers request is rejected, some Republicans say efforts to stop Trump could return. if the conflict continues or the US president decides to send ground troops into it. “If we're talking about months, not weeks, we'll see another vote,” said a third House Republican, adding that Trump has some “freedom of action” for now.
Meanwhile, Johnson is turning any intraparty concerns about Trump's war into another vote on a stalled homeland security spending bill. It is scheduled to take place this week. This is an attempt to focus attention on Democrats' opposition to funding for the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and other agencies as the department's shutdown approaches three weeks.
Johnson also claims that voting on war powers is “dangerous” at a time when U.S. troops are in danger, and that Republicans will act to “stop them.” He added that the attacks did not require prior congressional authorization because they were “defensive in nature.”
These arguments have met with approval from most House Republicans, who say they are willing to give the president time. “I think the Pentagon has a good plan so far,” said Republican Rep. Jeff Crank (R-Colorado), a member of the Armed Services Committee. He adds that he will give Trump “six weeks or eight weeks or however long we need to accomplish the missions we have assigned.” — The worst thing we could dois to enter and then retreat or shorten the mission, regardless of our goals. We are there. We must achieve our goals.
