GOP Senator Opposes More Than 60 Days Of War On Iran Without War Declaration

In what could become a key milestone in an unpopular US-Israeli war on Iran that has the world on the edge of economic catastrophe, a Republican senator from one America's reddest states has announced his opposition to continued action against Iran beyond 60 days from the Feb 28 commencement of hostilities -- unless Congress approves it.

"I support the president’s actions taken in defense of American lives and interests," wrote first-term Sen. John Curtis in an opinion piece published by the Desert News. "However, I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval."

I stand by the President’s actions taken in defense of our national security interests in the Middle East. But we must be clear-eyed about history and the Constitution. While I support maintaining our readiness and replenishing stockpiles, I cannot support funding for further…
— Senator John Curtis (@SenJohnCurtis) April 3, 2026

Walking a careful and arguably untenable line as he represents a reliably red state that Trump won by 22 points in 2024, Curtis gave full backing to Trump's unilateral commitment of US forces to war in concert with the State of Israel. Curtis goes so far as to declare that "Iran’s consistent and increasingly disruptive behavior presents exactly the kind of threat the War Powers Resolution envisions."

Note, he didn't refer -- as some others have -- to an impending retaliation against US forces in the region if Israel had acted alone (an argument that itself ignores America's theoretical power to order Israel to stand down). Instead, Curtis argued that Iran's decades of actions in the region somehow cleared the War Powers Resolution's hurdle of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that about two-thirds of Americans want the U.S. to end its involvement in the Iran War quickly, even if it means not achieving its goals.

Only 27% support continuing the war until objectives are met. pic.twitter.com/dJpFv1YboL
— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 31, 2026

Curtis argues, however, that the Constitution clearly assigns responsibility for authorizing sustained war to the Congress:

"The Constitution assigns Congress the responsibility to “provide for the common defense,” and in that context, it gives Congress the corresponding power to declare war. It would be an act of disrespect to our Constitution if we were to accord the president the right to make war without any declaration of war; the Framers deliberately described a substantive power to declare war and assigned that power to Congress."

In addition to justifying his position the need for post-60-days congressional approval on constitutional grounds, Curtis also pointed to the grim history of the US war in Vietnam, emphasizing that what began in 1950 with the dispatching of just "thirty-five men" to assist the French in training Vietnamese troops would evolve into a peak of more than a half-million American soldiers in the country, with nearly 60,000 dying in an undeclared war.

The Iran War Powers Resolution narrowly failed, but we put everyone on record.

We’re being told this military action could last months. That’s the exact circumstance in which the Founders intended for Congress to authorize war, but sadly we’ve now abdicated that responsibility. pic.twitter.com/lE8HOLXUpc
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 5, 2026

Curtis didn't say whether he would vote to declare war on Iran, focusing instead on his opposition to "funding for continued military operations without Congress having the opportunity to weigh in." There have already been several attempts to block further military action without congressional approval -- all of them have been thwarted. To this point, only a few Republicans have backed these war-power resolutions: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul joined Democrats in supporting a Senate measure, while Kentucky Rep Thomas Massie introduced one in the House, and was joined by Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson, who is a former Army Ranger.

Way back on March 5, House Speaker Mike Johnson said such resolutions "play right into the hands of the enemy." He also claimed "we are not at war. We have no intention of being at war. This is a limited operation." That "not a war" argument is belied not only by a common-sense assessment of whether a massive bombing campaign on a foreign state constitutes "war," but also by repeated characterizations of the United States being in a state of war by President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others in the administration.

NOW - Trump on Iran War: "It's for legal reasons I say military op, because as a military operation I don't need any approvals. As a war you're supposed to get approval from Congress, something like that. So I call it a military operation." pic.twitter.com/gk0MEt0YOI
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 27, 2026

There are other cracks in the GOP's support for the war. On March 19, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert recoiled at the Pentagon's wish for a $200 billion supplemental funding to pay for the war on Iran.

“I’ve already told leadership, ‘I am a no on any war supplementals. I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I am tired of the industrial war complex getting all of our hard-earned tax dollars. I have folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live...We need America First policies now, and that –– I’m not doing that."

At the time, Boebert said it was "up to the president" whether the war with Iran should stop. Increasingly, it looks like it's up to Ayatollah Khamenei.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/04/2026 - 22:10