'All-in': GOP lawmakers divided on US involvement as Trump pushes Iran for diplomatic end
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called for the president to go "all-in" for Israel should a diplomatic end to the conflict with Iran not be met.
Earlier in the day, President Donald Trump called on Iranian leaders to return to the negotiating table to strike a nuclear deal to avoid "even more brutal" attacks.
Graham lauded Trump's desire to bring Iran back to the table but countered that "if Iran refuses this offer, I strongly believe it is in America's national security interest to go all-in to help Israel finish the job."
"One of the benefits of this approach is that it would substantially undo the damage done to our reputation by Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan," Graham said on X.
"If diplomacy fails, going all-in for Israel shows that America is back as a reliable ally and a strong force against oppression. It would strengthen our hand in all corners of the world, as well as all other conflicts we face."
His zeal to support the Jewish State came before Fox News reported that two U.S. Navy Destroyers, the USS Sullivans and USS Arleigh Burke, were assisting Israel to shoot down incoming missile volleys from Iran.
However, other pro-Israel lawmakers were not ready to see American troops deployed in the region and believed Trump would be the key to preventing any action from the U.S.
"I can't imagine a world in which that happens," Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital. "I'd be opposed to that. The president is adamantly opposed to that. I trust President Trump here to keep our troops and other personnel safe in the region."
Hawley said Trump "has offered Iran an off-ramp here for a long time" through the nuclear agreement negotiation and noted the president again offered an out.
"You know, they ought to take that off-ramp," he said.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, R-Idaho, told Fox News Digital in a statement that "no one hates to see U.S. troops put at risk more than our president."
"President Trump has worked tirelessly to end wars and stop killing. And, in this case, I know he will continue to do all he can to keep U.S. troops out of harm's way as the war between Israel and Iran unfolds," he said.
Israel's strike on Iran was intended to take out the country's nuclear enrichment program and carry out targeted attacks on a number of top Iranian officials.
Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., said the strike was "warranted" given Iran's years of aggression against Israel, but he agreed with the president that negotiations needed to resume.
"A regime that chants 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon," he said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "Israel has every right to defend itself, and America stands with Israel."
But others, like Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., accused Trump of killing the Iran nuclear agreement and contended that the end of negotiations "accelerated Iran's development towards a bomb."
Still, he hoped a deal could be made to prevent further "escalation in the region that could endanger American citizens, troops and our interests."
"As we support Israel in protecting their people from Iran's response, everyone needs to be focused on de-escalation," Kelly said in a statement.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Live updates: Trump military parade, ‘No Kings' protests
Update: Date: 4 min ago Title: National Guard "twiddling their thumbs in LA" instead of stopping fentanyl trafficking, Gov. Newsom says Content: Members of the California National Guard federalized by President Donald Trump have been pulled away from efforts to stop the flow of fentanyl at the US-Mexico border, Gov. Gavin Newson claimed in a social media post yesterday. Newsom's comments on X were in response to a post by White House adviser Stephen Miller regarding the administration's border security priorities. 'You just pulled National Guard I placed at the border who were stopping fentanyl smuggling,' Newsom wrote. 'Now they're twiddling their thumbs in LA.' Remember: Trump federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard against Newsom's will, with orders to protect federal buildings and personnel amid immigration protests in Los Angeles. On Wednesday, Newsom said Trump's deployment of guard troops to LA also threatened the state's ability to respond to wildfires. Update: Date: 8 min ago Title: About 60 veterans and military families arrested last night at US Capitol protest after crossing police line Content: A group of roughly 60 individuals were arrested outside the US Capitol yesterday evening after breaching a police line of bike racks and moving toward steps leading to the Capitol Rotunda, according to the Capitol Police. The group, made up of veterans and military family members, planned a sit-in on the Capitol steps to protest President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles, as well as a military parade today, according to a news release from organizers. A group of approximately 75 protesters were demonstrating peacefully at the Supreme Court, just across the street from the US Capitol, according to a statement from the Capitol Police. As the group was leaving the area, officers began establishing a perimeter of bike racks to keep the protesters away from the Capitol. 'A few people pushed the bike rack down and illegally crossed the police line while running towards the Rotunda Steps,' the Capitol Police said. 'Our officers immediately blocked the group and began making arrests.' Police said: 'All will be charged with unlawful demonstration and crossing a police line. Additional charges for some will include assault on a police officer and resisting arrest.' The protest was organized by two advocacy groups — About Face: Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace. The brief sit-in followed a rally and press conference, according to the organizers' news release. 'We want a future where we invest in care for veterans, in health care, and in education, not where we spend $50 million on a parade,' said Brittany Ramos DeBarros, an Army combat veteran and organizing director of About Face: Veterans Against the War, in a statement. Update: Date: 44 min ago Title: Here's where "No Kings" protests are expected to take place across the country today Content: Millions of Americans are expected to attend protests today in what organizers predict will be the strongest display of opposition to President Donald Trump's administration since he took office in January. More than 2,000 demonstrations across all 50 states have been planned through the 'No Kings' movement, which organizers say seeks to reject 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.' The mobilization is a direct response to Trump's military parade tonight celebrating the 250th anniversary of the US Army — which coincides with his 79th birthday. Update: Date: 2 min ago Title: Many GOP senators aren't attending Trump's military parade and one says he would've "recommended against" it Content: The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman said he would've advised against hosting a big military parade in Washington, DC — an unease with the event reflected by some of his fellow Senate Republicans. 'I would have recommended against the parade,' Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi told CNN when asked for his views on the event. Wicker, the chamber's top Republican with oversight of the military, said he would be out of town attending the Paris Air Show during the parade, which coincides with President Donald Trump's birthday. Most of the GOP senators surveyed by CNN this week said they did not plan to attend: • Senate Majority Leader John Thune won't be in DC for the parade. Asked about spending some $45 million on it at a time when many Republicans are demanding government austerity, he said: 'There are a lot of people who believe that's a cause worth celebrating.' • An aide to Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso said that after being at the White House twice this week, the senator would be back in Wyoming celebrating the Army's 250th birthday and Flag Day with his constituents. • Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, Senate Foreign Relations chairman, said he would miss the parade. 'Come on guys, we have lot of stuff to do. We have lots of parades in Washington,' he said. • Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas will also be at the air show in Paris, and Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma will be home celebrating his wedding anniversary, though he said he 'would love to see it.' • Sens. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Josh Hawley of Missouri, John Curtis of Utah, John Kennedy of Louisianna and Chuck Grassley all won't be there. One Republican with whom CNN spoke — Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall — told reporters Thursday he plans to attend the parade.
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Iran's Araghchi Says US Talks ‘Unjustified' After Israeli Attack
Iranian foreign minister and lead negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, said continuing nuclear talks with the US would be 'unjustifiable' in light of Israel's ongoing military assault on the Islamic Republic, according to a government statement. Araghchi's comments are the strongest sign yet that Iran is likely to withdraw from its negotiations with the Trump administration, which were scheduled for a sixth round on Sunday.
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
Higher Oil Prices Mean Less GDP
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks after casting his ballot during the runoff ... More presidential election in Tehran on July 5, 2024. (Photo by ATTA KENARE / AFP) (Photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images) The shale revolution has been a huge boon for America, producing an enormous amount of income, tax revenue and employment as well as reducing CO2 emissions. At the same time, by reducing our net oil imports, they have substantially improved our energy security. But the simple metric of net imports understates the complexity of energy security. Energy vulnerability is often treated as nothing more than reliance on imports from foreign countries, and that is certainly a crucial element but hardly the only one. Conversely, the fact that the U.S. still imports as much as eight million barrels a day of oil overstates our vulnerability: lost imports would not mean a shortage for domestic consumers, as that oil is swapped out for domestic supplies for the sake of economic efficiency, and producers can simply retain crude that is currently exported. The Figure below breaks down the source of gross imports; the decline in oil from OPEC is pronounced, while the rise of Canadian oil imports, due to higher oil sands production, exaggerates the security of our supply, albeit only slightly. U.S. Oil Imports (thousand barrels per day) On the one hand, despite ongoing tension with Canada, they are unlikely to cut off sales to the U.S. for political reasons. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that in a new disruption of global oil supply, such as from unrest in Russia or war in the Middle East, Canadian oil would continue to be delivered to American refiners. In theory, Canada could use the U.S. for the transshipment of oil to better paying overseas customers, although given the globalized nature of the oil market, prices should not be significantly different elsewhere. Of course, should American politicians (foolishly) respond to a global oil crisis by restricting exports of domestic crude, U.S. oil prices would presumably drop below global prices, encouraging Canadian companies to export their oil elsewhere. Such a populist move by the U.S. would be detrimental and the impact multiplied if politicians tried to prevent Canadian companies from selling their oil onwards, mostly through the Gulf Coast ports. Should, say, a country like China offer attractive deals to Canadian companies for additional supply (similar to what happened in 1979), the political calculus becomes more complex. But this highlights another way the globalized oil market affects energy security: even if the U.S. is well-supplied with oil, a global oil crisis will translate into higher domestic oil prices. Absent political intervention, U.S. prices would rise to match global oil prices, meaning even with our current energy independence, a new oil crisis would inflict economic damage. Certainly, now that the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, higher oil prices would improve not worsen the trade balance. Still, sending the money from East Coast consumers to Southwest producers will have a deflationary impact on the economy because higher oil prices have an effect similar to a tax hike. Consumers would spend more for gasoline and reduce other spending accordingly. It is generally thought that a tax hike lowers GDP by 2-3 times the increased taxes, so that an increase in taxes equal to 1% of GDP yields a 2-3% reduction in GDP. Tax Increases Reduce GDP | NBER An oil price increase does not have precisely the same effect, because the money goes not from the private sector to the government but from one part of the private sector (consumers) to another (oil producers). Still, a $10/barrel increase in oil prices equates to roughly $35 billion in higher household expenditures, or about 0.1% of GDP. So, back of the envelope calculation suggests that GDP would drop somewhere on the order of 0.2% for every $10/barrel increase in oil prices. This effect is clearly seen in historical GDP data, as the figure below shows, although there are obviously many confounding factors. In all likelihood, the impact now would be less than in the past because our oil trade balance is positive; net exports, at 2 million barrels per day, will translate into modest but significant economic benefits. Still, in the case of a prolonged period of $100 per barrel oil, which many think could be achieved if the Middle East situation worsens significantly, a GDP loss of 0.5% is quite likely. Change in Real GDP (percent) At present, it appears unlikely that Middle Eastern oil supply will be affected by the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. Attacks on shipping or the Straits of Hormuz would boost prices but are unlikely to persist beyond a few weeks. More worrisome would be an Israeli attack on Iranian oil facilities, although at present, such is not expected. So, $100 oil for several months would not automatically translate into a recession, but would have a notable impact on GDP growth, especially if the Fed raises interest rates as higher oil prices increase inflation. But an oil price spike will definitely worsen consumer and business confidence. As much as it would be nice for cash-rich Southwesterners to spend their increased income on Maine lobster and New England clam chowder, a prolonger period of higher oil prices--$100 or more—will be disruptive enough to threaten at least significant economic slowing and potentially tip us into a recession.
