'Totally incoherent': Why Iran war briefings have left US Senate Democrats frustrated and alarmed

A number of US Senate Democrats are pushing for open hearings on America's war on Iran, following a series of confidential briefings from Trump administration officials.

Legislators say the White House has failed to clearly articulate why the US entered the war, what it hopes to achieve or how long the conflict might continue, reports Al Jazeera.

Republicans, who hold a slim 53-47 advantage in the Senate, have the authority to determine which bills reach the floor.

Some Democrats voiced dissatisfaction after the most recent closed-door briefing. Trump has left open the possibility of deploying US ground troops to Iran.

"I just came from a two-hour classified briefing on the war," Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy said on Tuesday (10 March). 

"It confirmed to me that the strategy is totally incoherent," he remarked.

"I think this is pretty simple: if the president did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to seek authorisation for this war, he wouldn't get it, because the American people would demand that their members of Congress vote no."

Sessions classified 

Since the US and Israel began military operations against Iran on 28 February, top officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have held multiple private congressional briefings on the campaign and its progress.

Because the sessions are classified, members of Congress are limited in what they may share publicly.

What are Democrats saying?

Several Democratic senators said they had walked away from the briefings unsatisfied, arguing that the administration had offered no clear answers regarding the war's goals, expected duration or broader strategic direction.

Earlier this week, six Democratic senators also called for an inquiry into a strike on a girls' school in Minab, in southern Iran. Reports suggest the attack, which investigators say involved US forces, killed at least 170 people, the majority of them children.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said, "There seems to be no endgame." "The president, almost in a single breath, says it's almost done, and at the same time, it's just begun. So this is kind of contradictory."

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday raised an alarm over the financial toll of the conflict, saying, "The one part that seems clear is that while there is no money for 15 million Americans who lost their health care, there's a billion dollars a day to spend on bombing Iran."

She added, "The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse."

Others are concerned about the prospect of a ground troop deployment.

"We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here," Blumenthal, of Connecticut, told the media after Tuesday's briefing.

"The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform and the potential for ⁠further escalation and widening of this war."

Statements from Republicans 

Republicans, who hold narrow majorities in both chambers, have almost entirely supported Trump's military campaign against Iran, with only a small number raising questions. 

Some Republican leaders argue the strikes are essential to diminish Iran's military strength, missile capabilities and regional footprint.

They also maintain that the operation is limited in scale and intended to reduce Iran's capacity to endanger US forces and regional allies.

Florida Republican Representative Brian Mast, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, publicly praised Trump last week for acting against what he called the "imminent threat" posed by Tehran, saying the president was exercising his constitutional authority.

Still, a few Republican lawmakers have spoken up with reservations.

South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace wrote on X that she did "not want to send South Carolina's sons and daughters into war with Iran."

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul accused the administration of constantly shifting its justification for the war.

"We keep hearing new reasons for war with Iran—none convincing," he wrote on X. 

"'Free the oppressed' sounds noble, but where does it end? We've been told for decades Iran is weeks from a nuke. War should be a last resort, not our first move. A war of choice is not my choice."

Why the debate matters

The disagreement has reignited a longstanding Washington argument over the boundaries of presidential war-making authority.

The US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, yet modern presidents have routinely initiated military operations without formal legislative approval, frequently invoking national security or emergency justifications.

The relevant law permits the president to deploy troops for up to 60 days without congressional sign-off, followed by a 30-day withdrawal window if Congress does not authorise the action.

A number of lawmakers and legal scholars argue that the war against Iran underscores the need for greater congressional oversight of military operations.

David Schultz, a professor in the political science and legal departments at Hamline University, said, "In the 1970s, we adopted something called the War Powers Resolution that gives the president limited ability to do this."

"And so, either you could argue that what the president is doing violates the Constitution by… not [being] a formally declared war; or b, it exceeds his authority, either as commander-in-chief or under the War Powers Act.

"And therefore, you could argue that domestically, his actions are illegal and unconstitutional," he added.

The Trump administration has maintained that the 28 February strikes were justified as a response to an "imminent threat," a rationale presidents have commonly used to bypass prior congressional authorisation.

However, US intelligence agencies had themselves concluded before the beginning of the war that there was no evidence of any imminent Iranian threat to the US or its Middle Eastern facilities.