1 hour ago
House Republicans are signaling that they're largely OK with giving President Donald Trump the reins as the U.S. and Israel continue their joint operation against Iran.
But one red line looms on the horizon for most GOP lawmakers — one that would put dozens of them in a difficult position between supporting their party leader and keeping in line with Congress' constitutional authorities.
"I would like to see congressional approval for boots on the ground," Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., told Fox News Digital. He added, however, that "right now, it’s just an intervention, which is very similar to what Obama and Clinton and other presidents throughout my lifetime have done."
The ongoing strikes, which killed Iran's supreme leader and other members in the top ranks of Tehran's repressive regime, have so far been comprised of coordinated missile launches on military targets.
JONATHAN TURLEY: HOW TRUMP BOXED CONGRESS INTO FIGHT OR FLIGHT CHOICE ON IRAN
But the Trump administration has not ruled out having a U.S. presence on the ground there, despite assurances that the mission will be finite and only lasting a matter of weeks rather than months or years.
"The president is doing what he should be doing … I agree with the policy," Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. "If at some point this extends beyond … in terms of boots on the ground and budgetary need and scope, that starts to then demand our involvement, then we’ll look at it."
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., said she too backed the operation but added, "If ground troops get involved. I think that's a very different conversation. That's not where we are today."
74 RETIRED US GENERALS, ADMIRALS BACK IRAN STRIKES, WARN TEHRAN SEEKS TO ‘SPILL AMERICAN BLOOD’
"We're taking it day by day at this point to see how things progress, but that would certainly be something that we as Congress would like to be involved in the discussion," Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, R-Pa., told Fox News Digital.
But he also argued that forcing the operation to end too early could do more harm than good.
"Once the president has taken that action, that first action, if we were to pull back, it would actually leave us more vulnerable and less safe by leaving all of their capabilities in place, but having started a conflict like this," Mackenzie said.
"So we do need to follow through on the objectives, but we also need to be very much on guard to make sure that it doesn't expand beyond what we are able to achieve."
Others, like Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., were skeptical it would get to that point.
"I don't think we're going to get to that point. This is much different than Iraq or Afghanistan. The capabilities that we've developed, the intelligence that we developed, working with the IDF — we had the capabilities now that we did not have," Alford told Fox News Digital.
"Now, should it come to boots on the ground, which I don't think it will, that's an entirely different story … We're only five days into this, and I think what you've seen so far is having tremendous effect."
English (US)