A day after the U.S. launched its war on Iran at the end of February, President Donald Trump declared it would last “four to five” weeks.
In the weeks since, Trump’s own explanation of the status of the conflict has shifted — repeatedly.
On multiple occasions, Trump has declared victory, labeled the conflict a “short excursion,” and insisted the ending was coming “soon.”
Under his initial timeline, the war would have been over by Easter. And yet, the standoff persists — with a shaky ceasefire, muddled talks between the two nations, and no clear off-ramp in sight.
With the war closing in on two months, congressional Republicans continue to give the president wide latitude, downplaying questions about the shifting timelines — during a critical midterm election year, no less — and insisting the U.S. needs to accomplish its goals.
“Once you start it, you’ve got to finish it,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told MS NOW, adding that he never supported the president issuing a timeline of a few weeks early on.
“I’d like to keep the blockade on Iranian ports, and in the end, we got to finish the job,” Johnson said. “Whatever it takes.”
Rep. Derek Schmidt, R-Kan. — a member of the House Armed Services Committee — said that while he hopes the war “wraps up as quickly as possible,” he also wants “to see it succeed.”
“The United States is engaged in a military operation that needs to result in the elimination of the Iranian ability to set off a nuclear explosion,” Schmidt said. “Everything else is secondary to that in my mind — including the election timelines.”
Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, defended the president’s shifting timelines. “You know what the boss is doing? He’s doing everything he can to give Iran a way out of this,” he said.
Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., said he doesn’t think “you could publicly put out a timeline, because things are moving. Everything’s changing every day.”
And Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, told MS NOW that while he would have “loved” if the war was over three weeks ago, “once you start something, you have to finish it.”
“As a United States Marine, what I can tell you is that there is never a perfect game plan for war,” Miller added.
Of course, the president’s own efforts at defining the goals of the conflict have been inconsistent at best.
So, too, have the definitions offered by Republicans on Capitol Hill. Some focus specifically on ensuring Iran’s nuclear capabilities are eliminated. Others insist reopening the Strait of Hormuz — a key pinchpoint in the global oil supply — must be done before the war ends.
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., labeled both ‘must dos.’
“We will have wasted our time, disrupted the good Iranian citizens who we want — ultimately — to have a way of life again that they had before the Shah was deposed,” he said.
And Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told MS NOW, “We need to do both.”
While Republicans continue to give the president some latitude to accomplish his goals — even as the conflict drags on — not all members of the caucus on Capitol Hill are offering a ringing endorsement of the White House’s communication strategy.
Recommended
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., told MS NOW that “of course” he wishes the White House was clearer when publicly discussing the war. But, he added, “this has been a problem with generations of presidents. I don’t think any of them use a bully pulpit enough.”
“The way FDR did it, you know, with the fireside chats, he brought the country with him. You have to do that in times like this,” Fitzpatrick said, invoking President Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership during World War II.
Miller said that while he has confidence in the Trump administration, “without question” it would be helpful to have a good line of communication with the public during an election year.
“I would like them to have more engagement with the House,” he said. “There’s no question.”
Miller also expressed frustration with so much information about the war being shared in classified settings — meaning he’s restricted in what he can share publicly.
And Schmidt, when asked if Trump was too optimistic with his initial multiweek timeline, argued there’s “no point” in revisiting that estimate. “The president has a way of communicating that often is aimed at different audiences with different messages,” he said.
Democrats, meanwhile, argue the president’s shifting public timelines and declarations of victory only underscore that Trump has “no clear strategy” for the war.
“He’s living moment to moment in a highly dangerous situation where clear-eyed and clear-headed strategy is vital,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told MS NOW.
Blumenthal said that, behind the scenes, the patience among his GOP colleagues is “fraying.”
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York — the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee — agreed, claiming that Republicans, privately, are nervous.
And Meeks suggested the brave face from Republicans may not last forever.
“As primaries start to go by, that’s when you’re going to start to see them breaking because the president then can’t endanger them,” Meeks said.
Nora McKee contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.