When it comes to defining victory in Iran, many Republicans on Capitol Hill have a simple answer: Ask President Donald Trump.
As the U.S. war with Iran closes in on the two-week mark, Republicans are eager to tout military accomplishments — including degrading Iran’s missile capabilities — but they are less clear on what a victory looks like.
Asked what defines a “win,” Sen. Josh Hawley’s deference to Trump was so strong that the Missouri Republican said he wouldn’t be able to answer what victory in Iran looks like until Trump declares it.
“Not ’til he says so,” Hawley said.
Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., offered a similar response, pointing MS NOW to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue for an answer on what constitutes a win. “That’s up to the commander in chief,” Hagerty said.
“I’m not going to be the one to define victory,” he said.
When reporters asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., if it was time to declare victory and move on, he said he would “kind of leave that to the war planners and the administration.”
Of course, Congress holds the sole constitutional authority to declare war — even as many Republicans have been willing to let Trump conduct military strikes without seeking their approval. But not forcing the Trump administration to define the conditions for victory, and letting them nebulously determine when those objectives have been met, is another level of deference entirely.
Hawley said the military had already “quite impressively” met most objectives of this conflict with Iran, pointing to what he described as “decapitating the regime, seriously degrading their short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, degrading their navy.”
“That’s all been done,” he said.
In the absence of clearly articulated objectives from Trump — whether that means dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, forcing regime change or negotiating a new peace deal — most Republicans are focusing on the damage already inflicted on Iran’s military.
Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., told MS NOW that the “mission” included dismantling Iran’s military and its ballistic missile capabilities, as well as ensuring that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.
“Those are the three objectives, and that’s what we’ll have to measure,” she said.
But as Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., pointed out online this week, if the objective is just to destroy missiles, boats and drone factories, “What happens when you stop bombing and they restart production?”
Murphy said Trump administration briefers have hinted at more bombings.
“Which is, of course, endless war,” Murphy said.
For Trump and his GOP allies, leaving the war’s objectives vague carries political advantages. Without clearly defined goals, Trump can declare victory whenever he wants — and most Republicans appear ready to back up his asserted success.
Democrats, meanwhile, warn the lack of a clear strategy risks dragging the U.S. into another prolonged conflict, with ever-changing goals and no clear exit strategy.
For days, they have criticized Trump for launching the attacks without congressional authorization and accused the administration of failing to be transparent with lawmakers.
“I don’t know what the goal is,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said after exiting a closed-door briefing on the war Tuesday.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., told reporters Monday that “it is very clear, whether you’re in classified briefings or not, that there is no plan on how this winds down.”
“There’s a different set of goals articulated every single day, sometimes every single hour,” she added.
Murphy went even further, calling it “the most incoherent, confusing rationale for war that anyone alive today has heard from an administration.”
Baldwin, Murphy and a handful of other Senate Democrats are threatening to repeatedly force votes on war powers resolutions to try to cut off Trump’s military operation if the White House doesn’t provide a public briefing on the conflict.
One of the biggest unanswered questions hanging over the war is what comes next — including whether regime change or nation-building is part of the administration’s plans.
On those questions, the president has been inconsistent at best in his public comments.
On the day of the first strikes, Trump urged Iranians to pursue political change themselves, calling on them to “seize this moment, to be brave, be bold, be heroic and take back your country.” He later told The Washington Post, “All I want is freedom for the people.”
On March 6, in a Truth Social post, Trump posted that “we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.” And earlier this week, on March 9, he told reporters that the Iran operation was the “beginning of building a new country.”
What that means, again, is unclear, but if Trump intended to put in place a regime more amenable to the U.S. and Israel, he may have failed on that goal — at least for the moment.
The initial round of strikes on Feb. 28 left Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, dead. A week later, Iran’s regime announced Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, as his successor. Because of his network of ties within Iran’s regime, including his connections to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, experts largely view him as a continuation of his father.
Trump told the New York Post he was “not happy” with this selection, and The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump told aides he would support killing the new supreme leader if he doesn’t give in to U.S. demands.
In interviews, many Republicans — perhaps reminded of the years spent trying to prop up new regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan — argued that regime change shouldn’t be or isn’t a U.S. objective.
“Would that be a ‘nice to have?’ Yeah. But that’s not our goal,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told MS NOW.
“I think Israel’s stated purpose is a little bit different,” he said.
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas — the former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — said it would be “very nice if there was a government that really represented their people, but that requires more than what we’re doing now.”
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters Tuesday that while regime change could be “a great thing for the people there,” “they need to secure that for themselves,” and it is “not America’s responsibility to do that.”
Thune, for his part, said he thinks regime change “makes sense.”
“But that’s going to be up to the Iranian people, and I think also allies in the region,” he said.
Mychael Schnell and Jack Fitzpatrick contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.