Tariq Saeedi
On Tuesday afternoon, March 3, the senior architects of America’s war on Iran walked into the U.S. Capitol to face the legislature they had bypassed five days earlier. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sat down first with the full Senate, then in the evening with the full House.
The purpose, officially, was to brief lawmakers on Operation Epic Fury. The effect, for many of those in the room, was the opposite of reassurance.
What followed was one of the most revealing days on Capitol Hill since the Iraq War — not for what the administration revealed inside those classified sessions, but for what senators and representatives said the moment they walked back out into the corridors.
“It Is So Much Worse Than You Thought”
The Democratic reaction to the Senate briefing was, in a word, alarm. Not the performative, partisan alarm that characterises many Washington press scrums, but something that felt more raw — the disquiet of people who had just been told, in clinical detail, that a war they had no vote on was about to get significantly larger.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was the bluntest. In a video posted directly to her followers after leaving the session, she spoke with striking candour: “It is so much worse than you thought. You are right to be worried. The Trump administration has no plan in Iran. This illegal war is based on lies, and it was launched without any imminent threat to our nation. Donald Trump still hasn’t given a single clear reason for this war, and he seems to have no plan for how to end it, either.” Common Dreams
These are not words senators throw around lightly. They are the words of someone who went into a classified room expecting answers and came out more frightened than before.
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut put a political and strategic frame around his fear. “This is as serious as it gets. This is war and peace. They told us in that room that there are going to be more Americans that are going to die. That they’re not going to be able to stop these drones that are going to continue to fly into the Middle East.” The Hill
Murphy described the operation as the most significant military action the United States has taken since the Iraq War, and his conviction had only deepened after the briefing: “I’m more convinced now that this is going to be open-ended and forever.” Common Dreams
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut was direct about the fear that haunts the session most — the question of boots on the ground. “I am more fearful than ever after this briefing that we may be putting boots on the ground and that troops from the United States may be necessary to accomplish objectives that the administration seems to have.” Common Dreams
The administration did not explicitly threaten a ground invasion, but it did not rule one out, and that refusal hung over the Democratic delegation like a storm cloud.
Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii captured what many Democrats felt was the fundamental problem with the briefing — that it explained nothing. “There are times when you go into a classified session and you walk out with a better understanding about the gravity of the situation and the rationale behind the military action. This is not one of those times. We remain as confused as the American people are. They have had three or four or five justifications for this act of war over the last four or five days, and nothing in this classified session alleviated that confusion.” The Hill
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, offered what might be the most damning summary of the administration’s credibility problem.
He traced the shifting rationale publicly: “A week ago, it was about the Iranian nuclear capacity. A few days later, it was about taking out the ballistic missiles. It was then about regime change, and now we hear it’s about sinking the Iranian fleet.” The Hill
He added: “I’m not sure which of those goals, if met, means that we’re at an endgame.” Rolling Stone
That observation cuts to the heart of the strategic vacuum at the centre of this war.
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has led the effort to force a War Powers vote, pressed the administration directly on timeline. The answer was not reassuring. Senator Schumer said the briefing had “shifting goals, different goals all the time, different answers every day,” The Hill and Kaine himself concluded that objectives remained “pretty murky.”
He challenged the administration’s legal basis for bypassing Congress: “It clearly was not an imminent threat. I do not believe this got anywhere near that the U.S. was facing an imminent threat, the term has traditionally been used when talking about military actions.” The Hill
He told reporters the briefing had convinced many lawmakers that the White House had no intention of ever seeking congressional authorisation: “It’s convinced many of us in the room that you’ve decided that you will never come to Congress. You don’t think you ever have to come to Congress for war authorization.” The Hill
Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey, a former State Department official with direct experience in the region, emerged alarmed. “Everything that I heard in there confirms that this is a war. The level of violence has been significant,” Democracy Now! he said, and added that the administration had told lawmakers directly: stronger strikes were coming, and members should “expect even stronger strikes going forward, which is, again, just ominous for the protection of American citizens in the region.” Washington Times
He concluded: “This is only just the beginning of what several of them said is going to be a very long operation. This is a war. This is the Iran war.” The Hill
Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland summed it all up with a phrase that ricocheted across social media: “They don’t have a clue what the end game is.” In a video posted on X, he described the administration’s messaging as “complete incoherence,” saying that what senators heard behind closed doors was essentially the same shifting narrative already circulating in public — no coherent explanation, no credible exit strategy, and constantly shifting narratives about what the operation is actually for. PBS
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer kept his post-briefing statement spare and pointed: “I found their answers completely and totally insufficient. In fact, at least to me, that briefing raised many more questions than it answered.” newsnationnow
On the Senate floor, he called on colleagues to support the War Powers Resolution: “As soon as our resolution comes to the floor, senators need to pick a side: stand with Americans who don’t want war.” newsnationnow
The Republican Divergence
Not everyone walked out shaken. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — a hawk who had been urging military strikes against Iran for months — emerged in a state of something approaching exhilaration. “This regime is in its death throes. The amount of firepower coming in the next day or two from us is going to be overwhelming. What’s coming in the coming days from us is going to be a lot bigger than it’s been in the last couple of days. The Arabs are in the fight now, so stay tuned. The liberation of Iran is at hand. The gateway to peace is about to open.” NPR
Graham’s triumphalism was the starkest possible contrast to the Democratic alarm. Where Democrats heard the briefing as a warning, Graham heard a victory bulletin.
Other Republicans were more measured. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri acknowledged that the scope of the operation was “very broad,” “rapidly evolving” and “really changing by the hour.” Washington Times
He said he would not like to see American troops on Iranian soil and that any boots-on-the-ground decision would require congressional authorisation — but added: “I didn’t hear in there any prediction of ground troops.” The Hill
Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, was more candid on that point: the administration is not “ruling out” a ground troop option. Senator Rick Scott of Florida said he hoped it would never come to that — but would not take the option off the table. Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, asked about Democratic War Powers efforts, dismissed them: “It’ll go like it usually goes. We’ll have to tap Tim Kaine down one more time.” The Hill
Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota offered the official Republican line, calling the strikes “a necessary step to protect American lives” and citing what he described as an imminent threat to American assets in the region. Rolling Stone
Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who had spoken directly with Trump after the strikes began, said flatly he would support any supplemental funding request the White House sent to Congress.
One quietly significant voice was Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has previously shown willingness to cross party lines on war powers questions. She offered only: “It was an important briefing that we had today, and it is a situation that’s clearly evolving rapidly.” Rolling Stone
She declined to say how she would vote on the War Powers Resolution — as did her colleague from Maine, Senator Susan Collins. Whether either joins Kentucky’s Rand Paul — the only Republican currently committed to a yes vote — may decide the outcome.
The House: Louder, Angrier, More Divided
If the Senate emerged shaken and split along largely predictable lines, the House went further. The evening briefing there produced a rawer reaction, less filtered by the conventions of senatorial dignity.
Representative Jared Huffman of California had set the tone even before entering the room, turning to a colleague and asking: “Ready to consume some bullshit, Steve?” Coming out, he confirmed his preview, acknowledging “some bullsht involved, some editorializing.” The Hill
Representative Dave Min of California, representing a competitive swing district, was even more direct: “They’re coming in and bullshting us just like they did with Venezuela.” The Hill
Representative Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, one of House Democrats’ most vulnerable members, said the briefing had changed nothing for him — his thinking was “not at all” altered, and he would be supporting the Democratic War Powers Resolution.
Even Representative Jim Costa of California — who had been backing a softer centrist alternative — emerged saying he now supports both versions. The Hill
On the Republican side, the reaction was predictably warmer. Representative Dusty Johnson of South Dakota called it “one of the most productive briefings I’ve been a part of.” The Hill
House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was “very satisfied” with what was presented and expressed confidence that Republicans had the votes to defeat the War Powers Resolution. The Hill
But the House is genuinely divided in ways that cut across party lines. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a libertarian-minded Republican who has consistently bucked his party on questions of military adventurism, co-authored the House War Powers Resolution alongside progressive Democrat Ro Khanna of California. “The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war,” The Tribune Massie said. His presence as a Republican co-sponsor is not merely symbolic — if Massie and one or two other Republicans join Democrats, the math in the narrowly divided House becomes extremely tight.
The Democratic caucus itself showed cracks. Six House Democrats — Representatives Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Greg Landsman of Ohio, Jared Golden of Maine, Jim Costa of California, Henry Cuellar of Texas, and Jimmy Panetta of California — introduced an alternative War Powers Resolution that would give the administration 30 days from the start of hostilities to end the conflict, prohibit ground troops in a combat role for regime change or occupation, while preserving the right to defend American forces and allies. The Hill
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stayed focused on the Khanna-Massie measure, but the alternative’s existence exposed genuine divisions within Democratic ranks.
And then there is Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania — the most prominent Democrat breaking ranks entirely. A staunch supporter of Israel, Fetterman has announced he is a firm no on the War Powers Resolution. “My vote is Operation Epic Fury,” Political Wire he said, calling the resolution “really an empty gesture” OPB and challenging colleagues: “Every member in the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why so many are unwilling to support the only action to achieve that.” ANI News
What the Briefings Tell Us
Taken together, Tuesday’s classified sessions revealed something important that the participants, wittingly or not, disclosed the moment they stepped back into the Capitol corridors.
First, the administration’s stated rationale for the war has shifted so many times that even sympathetic members of Congress struggle to identify what success would look like. Senator Warner’s list — nuclear capacity, ballistic missiles, regime change, sinking the Iranian fleet — is not a set of sequential objectives; it is a shifting menu. None of those goals, even if achieved, clearly signals an end point. That is the signature of a war without a defined exit.
Second, the question of ground troops is not as settled as the White House would prefer the public to believe. Multiple senators across both parties acknowledged the possibility was left on the table. The administration’s refusal to rule it out reflects not a negotiating posture but genuine operational uncertainty in a conflict that, as Senator Hawley noted, is changing by the hour — while Iran continues to strike American embassies, consulates, and soft targets across the Gulf.
Third, Congress is about to vote on constraining a president who has already acted — and both resolutions are widely expected to fail. But as Senator Kaine argued in framing the exercise: “If you don’t have the guts to vote yes or no on a war vote, how dare you send our sons and daughters into war where they risk their lives.” Baltimore Sun
That argument is a hard one to answer. And the briefings of March 3, 2026 — with all their alarm, bluster, and carefully calibrated ambiguity — made it considerably harder. /// nCa, 5 March 2026