U.S. Military Action in Iran Advised Against by Top House Armed Services Member

Updated June 19, 2025 at 1:04 PM CDT

Let's Take a Step Back on Israel's War with Iran

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the top Dem on the House Armed Services Committee, thinks the U.S. should steer clear of Israel's scrape with Iran. According to him, too many unknowns could put American troops in peril.

Smith has reasons to believe that Iran is likely working on a nuclear weapon. He points out that it ain't a big secret that the Islamic regime's been ramping up their enrichment capacity.

However, he issues a warning about the unforeseen consequences of a military strike.

"If we dive headfirst into this war, Iran will start launching attacks on U.S. troops. The situation becomes as unpredictable as a wild west shootout, and that's why I'm against getting involved," he said. There are around 40,000 U.S. troops stationed across the Middle East, as per the Pentagon.

President Donald Trump is pondering over striking one of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. The Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plant, an underground facility considered crucial to Iran's nuclear program, is a top target. Publicly, the president remains tight-lipped on this matter.

"You never know, I may or may not do it. But here's the deal, Iran's got a world of trouble and wants to talk. Fact is, I've got options, a lot of 'em," Trump told reporters Wednesday.

While the admins weighs its options, Congress members are divided on the way forward.

Smith's stance echoes other top Democrats, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Conn. Ocasio-Cortez, along with more than a dozen other Democrats, signed onto a bipartisan resolution that prohibits any military involvement in Iran without Congressional approval. The resolution was spearheaded Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Cali.

As of now, Massie remains the sole GOP member on board with the resolution.

"I reckon a war between Israel and Iran might look swell for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's political career, but it'll likely spell disaster for both Israel, the U.S., and the entire region," Coons said in a statement.

Based on their public statements, lawmakers concur that Iran shouldn't snag a nuclear weapon, but opinions diverge about U.S. military involvement.

"By law, the president must consult Congress and seek authorization if he's considering leading the country to war. He owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement in the region," five Dem senators said in a joint statement.

Several GOP lawmakers, including Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., back a potential military strike, with or without Congressional approval.

"If it boils down to attacking Iran, I'm all for it. If that's what it takes to finish this, I'm fully backing it," Lawler told NPR Wednesday.

In a chat with NPR's Steve Inskeep, Rep. Adam Smith discussed his thoughts on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program andwhether Congress should give the green light to any U.S. military strike.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity

Interview Highlights

Steve Inskeep: Do you think Iran is sprinting towards a secret nuclear weapons program, as Israel asserts ahead of the war?

Rep. Adam Smith: Frankly, that's probably likely. Here's the thing, as we've been juggling through this brouhaha, Iran's been gradually making bigger moves. We've discovered that Iran has been upping the ante on its enrichment capacity. As one analyst put it, Iran's got as much enriched uranium as any country pushing a clandestine nukes program. So it's clear they're trying to get as close to the nuclear edge as they can.

Inskeep: Experts say there's a distinction between amassing the materials and actually beginning a program to build a bomb. Are you convinced they're doing the latter?

Smith: Iran's stance is they're moving right up to the edge but haven't decided yet. But the concern is they could make a decision, it won't be long before we're mere weeks away from seeing them with a bomb. Now, Iran took a significant risk by amassing that much uranium. The IAEA came out and said they're not sticking to their commitments, which gives us reason to worry that Iran could be days or even weeks away from making that decision and unveiling a bomb. I think that's fair to say there's wide agreement on that front.

Inskeep: The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war. While Congress has often dodged this responsibility, is it crucial for Congress to voice its opinion in this case?

Smith: You bet. I don't think we should enter into a conflict with Iran. And if the decision were to attack Iran, I think under the Constitution, Congress's approval would be necessary.

Inkeep: Even for an airstrike? Since we spoke with Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., yesterday, who said a mere airstrike would be something different than full-blown war.

Smith: I'm strongly opposed to getting involved in attacking Iran in that way. I don't believe there's an argument that this is an inherent right of self-defense. There's no existing AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) that would support this. I feel strongly that the President should come to Congress. But the history here is clear: Presidents do what they want. So while the law and Constitution are clear on this matter, I think President Trump would assert the right to do it without Congress and could likely get away with it. But that doesn't change the fact that I think the law and Constitution are explicit: the President shouldn't be able to do this.

Inskeep: Should we be ready for a full-scale war if it comes to that?

Smith: Beyond the legal and constitutional matters, there are two major problems with the U.S. getting involved. First off, how much damage can you inflict on this particular site? I've been briefed on this for years, and there's been significant concern that destroying the sites will be far more challenging than people realize. Additionally, do they have other sites? We don't think they do, but then again, we didn't think they had this one until we found out they did. Second, if we take a swing at Iran, we've got assets in Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, and Syria. If we go to war with Iran, they've declared they'll target these sites, making the situation pretty unpredictable. That's why I don't believe the U.S. should step into this.

"The ongoing Israel-Iran tensions have sparked concerns about the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with Rumors abounding about Iran's nuclear ambitions being no secret."
"In the ongoing debate about military intervention in the region, Rep. Adam Smith and other lawmakers argue for caution, citing the unpredictable nature of war-and-Conflicts and the potential for general-news such as a wider regional conflict."