Iran ‘dangerous’ to peace, says GOP Rep. who backs Trump on U.S. military involvement

House Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., agrees with President Trump that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon and would support a move by the president to strike and fully eliminate Tehran’s nuclear program.

“A nuclear Iran will seek to eradicate Israel and all but ensure WWIII,” Lawler said in a post on X. “We cannot allow that to happen. We must stand with Israel.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stressed the threat posed by a nuclear weapon-armed Iran as justification for the strikes carried out over the past few days, though Iran’s capabilities are up for debate.

While the administration is weighing its options about whether to actively join Israel in its conflict against Iran, Lawler told Morning Edition he supports involvement, “if that is what is required to finish the job.”

Lawler is not alone in his thinking, though some members of his party and many Democrats are calling for restraint.

This includes some of the president’s most staunch supporters who have warned against such a move.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon are among leading conservative voices who want the U.S. to stay out.

“My interest is really simple. I don’t want the United States enmeshed in another Middle Eastern war that doesn’t serve our interests,” Carlson said on Bannon’s War Room podcast.

Trump yesterday convened a meeting with his national security team. Though no decision has been made, before the meeting, Trump said in a post on Truth Social that his administration’s “patience is wearing thin.”

In a conversation with Morning Edition, Lawler spoke to NPR’s Steve Inskeep about what steps the U.S. should take with regards to Iran.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights

Steve Inskeep: When President [Trump] says we have control of the skies, are we – meaning the United States – already involved in this war?

Rep. Mike Lawler: I think realistically, the United States has supplied Israel with a lot of military equipment and ammunition. In addition, there’s great intelligence cooperation between our two nations. And I can certainly say that over the course of the last few months, there’s been communication and cooperation as Israel made the decision to take a preemptive strike against a nuclear Iran and its continued threats to eradicate the state of Israel.

Inskeep: Just a few days ago, the United States was saying, we’re not part of this. Now the president is saying literally, “We are in it.” Are we in it?

Lawler: Again, I think there has always been great cooperation and coordination, communication. You have to remember, there’s 40,000 American troops in the Middle East. We have bases within proximity to Iran. Obviously, we want to make sure that Iran does not strike at our military personnel. In addition, I think it’s often forgotten there’s 700,000-plus Americans living in Israel either part time or full time. So that’s the size almost of a congressional district.

Inskeep: Regardless of the involvement the United States may have had up to now, there’s the discussion of the United States specifically deploying a bunker-busting bomb, a giant bomb that could potentially, we’re told, damage or destroy an Iranian nuclear facility at Fordo beneath a mountain. Should the United States do that?

Lawler: In my opinion, yes. I think the reality of the situation is that a nuclear Iran is dangerous for peace and stability, not just in the Middle East, but throughout the world. The relationship they have had with China, with Russia, the coordinated effort to undermine and destabilise the free world. We have to take all of this into account. And Iran obviously is teetering on the brink. You can see it. You can see the potential for an uprising within, by the Iranian people, not by the U.S. or Israel, but by the Iranian people. And a nuclear Iran is the only thing standing in the way from that happening. And so from my vantage point, when you look at the totality of the situation, Israel has taken great steps to weaken Iran’s air defenses over the past year. They’ve taken great steps to eliminate the nuclear program. But we all knew that they would not fully be able to do it without U.S. engagement and involvement. And if that is what is required to finish the job, I fully support it.

Inskeep: I just want to underline some of the risks here. We don’t know how a war would turn out. That’s one of the realities of war. The war in Iraq did not turn out the way that a lot of people expected when the United States went after weapons of mass destruction there. There’s also the question of political support at home, and there’s the matter of the law. Traditionally, if the United States was to attack another country, it would call for a declaration of war by Congress. The Constitution literally calls for that, even though the expectation is blurred in recent decades. Do you believe that any action is required by Congress before the president would have permission to attack Iran?

Lawler: In recent years, administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have taken targeted strikes and done so without coming to Congress for approval. The reality of this situation is far different than Iraq of two decades ago in terms of how this is being conducted. War has changed significantly. We see it every day. We see it with what Ukraine just did in Russia. We see it obviously how Israel has conducted this war.

Inskeep: So should Congress act then?

Lawler: Any further steps that would require U.S. troops on the ground. Certainly, that’s something that would have to come to Congress. But as far as working with Israel to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, I support that. And I support the president’s actions that he may take.