Many of the highest-ranking Senate Republicans, along with leading pro-Israel Democrats, expressed support for Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iran, but a number of skeptical lawmakers — mostly Democrats — expressed concern that the strikes could set off a broader war in the region.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, minutes after reports of the operation began, “Proud to stand with Israel.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) soon followed, saying, “Game on. Pray for Israel.”

Cotton later added that “We back Israel to the hilt, all the way,” adding that if “the ayatollahs harm a single American, that will be the end of the ayatollahs.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), said “Israel IS right—and has a right—to defend itself!”

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, “We stand with Israel tonight and pray for the safety of its people and the success of this unilateral, defensive action.”

“I am also praying for the brave U.S. service members in the Middle East who keep America safe — Iran would be foolish to attack the United States,” Risch continued.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) emphasized that Iran has been trying for years to wipe out Israel, and that it had just been found in violation of its nonproliferation obligations. He called for efforts toward peace and warned Iran against attacking American troops.

“Today, Israel has determined that it must take decisive action to defend the Israeli people,” Thune said. “The United States Senate stands ready to work with President Trump and with our allies in Israel to restore peace in the region and, first and foremost, to defend the American people from Iranian aggression, especially our troops and civilians serving overseas. Iran should heavily consider the consequences before considering any action against Americans in the region.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said, “I ask every American to join me in praying for the safety of U.S. personnel in the Middle East and the safety and success of Israel as it takes action against a leading state sponsor of terrorism and our shared enemy, Iran.” 

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Middle East subcommittee, also expressed support for Israel’s preemptive strike.

“Having just visited the region two weeks ago, I support Israel’s decision to preemptively strike Iran and dismantle its nuclear program,” Lawler said. “Iran cannot have nuclear weapons — a position the US and our allies have held for decades. Peace through strength.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that Iran’s refusal to dismantle its nuclear program is a danger to the U.S. and an existential threat to Israel. “Tonight Israel is taking action to defend itself, and we stand with Israel. Our prayers are with them and all American personnel in the region.”

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the administration’s former nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said, “The U.S. stands strongly with our ally and partner Israel.”

“May God Bless Israel & the brave IAF [Israeli Air Force] soldiers as they protect their national security and the world’s safety,” Stefanik said. “I know President Trump’s top priority is protecting the American people, our brave U.S. service members, and our national security by ensuring the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program to ensure they can never develop a nuclear weapon.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “Israel has an unquestionable right to defend itself” and that he is “proud to stand with Israel.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that Iran had “given President Trump the middle finger” on demands to dismantle its nuclear capacity. Israel is acting to defend themselves, and we should stand with them.”

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said that he supports the attack and “Our commitment to Israel must be absolute.”

“Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel,” Fetterman said. “We must provide whatever is necessary — military, intelligence, weaponry — to fully back Israel in striking Iran.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said: “If Israel’s strikes set back Iran’s nuclear program, we’ll all be safer,” adding that the U.S. must protect U.S. citizens and personnel and “must support Israel’s defense.”

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said that “Israel is not the aggressor. It is defending itself against an existential threat that long predates the present preemptive strike. The true aggressor is the Islamic Republic and its empire of terror — an empire stained with the blood of innocent Israelis.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), also noting that the International Atomic Energy Agency had just declared Iran to be in violation of its nonproliferation obligations, said that “Israel is justifiably defending itself and its people.”

“Diplomacy has been given every opportunity, but the Iranian regime refuses to give up their nuclear ambitions,” Landsman said. “There will be peace when Iran no longer has a nuclear program, a civil one sure, and their terror armies dismantled.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) said, “I fully stand with the people of Israel and support her right to defend herself against Iran’s nuclear and terror programs.”

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, emphasized that the U.S. was not involved in the strikes. He pointed blame toward Iran but also called for steps to wind down the conflict quickly.

“I will say I regret that we have come to this breaking point. However, under no circumstance can Iran get its hands on a nuclear weapon,” Crawford said. “A nuclear Iran would only embolden our adversaries and not only pose an undeniable threat to Israel, but also the United States and our Arab allies.”

“Iran pushed the world to this point through its blatant, relentless destabilizing behavior. Israel and others in the region have every right to take the actions needed to defend themselves,” Crawford continued. “I commend the Trump Administration for its tireless efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. I am hopeful a remedy is reached sooner rather than later to stabilize this situation before the stakes get any higher.”

A number of congressional Democrats — and one notable isolationist House Republican — are expressing concern that the strikes will spark a broader war in the region and several described the strikes as designed to sabotage U.S. nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, condemned the strikes as a “reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence.” 

“These strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians but the stability of the entire Middle East and the safety of American citizens and forces,” Reed said. “While tensions between Israel and Iran are real and complex, military aggression of this scale is never the answer.”

He called on both Israel and Iran to “show immediate restraint” and the Trump administration to push for “diplomatic de-escalation before this crisis spirals further out of control.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), a Republican aligned with the isolationist wing of the party, also appeared to decry the strikes.

“I’m sad to say but some members of Congress and US Senators seem giddy about the prospects of a bigger war,” Davidson said, appending an emoji of a bandaged, frowning face.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) stopped short of praising or criticizing the Israeli attack, while blaming President Donald Trump for failing to bring peace to the Middle East and calling for de-escalation.

“I’m hopeful that cooler heads will prevail in the Middle East and the situation is de-escalated,” Jeffries said. “We certainly believe that Iran should never be allowed to become nuclear capable. They are an enemy not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the free world. But we also want to see a reduction in hostilities.”

Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said the strikes appear aimed at undermining U.S. negotiations with Iran, which were scheduled to continue this weekend in Oman.

“Iran should know that any targeting of U.S. forces and personnel stationed across the Middle East in retaliation for Israel’s actions would be a grave mistake. I urge the Trump administration to ensure that the protection of our personnel is our top priority,” Kim said. 

“Conflict should always be a last resort, especially when diplomacy is ongoing. This decision by [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu to go against American efforts and go alone in strikes puts American and Israeli lives on the line. We should do everything we can to stop this moment from spiraling into a wider conflict and bring parties back to the table to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) also described the attack as a sabotage of the nuclear talks and said it shows that world leaders do not respect President Donald Trump. He added in a statement, “we have no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a progressive Israel critic, said the strikes were “deeply disturbing.”

“I don’t agree often with the Trump administration, but I think here it’s important to say we need more negotiation, we need deescalation,” Warren said. “We need to get to a deal.”

Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, emphasized that the Trump administration needs congressional approval to bring U.S. troops into “Netanyahu’s war.”

“Netanyahu’s reckless strike risks provoking a wider war and pulling in the United States,” Casar said. “Trump must oppose Netanyahu’s escalation and pursue a diplomatic path to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. “

Multiple Senate Republicans said Wednesday that they plan to scrutinize President Donald Trump’s nomination of Paul Ingrassia, a far-right figure picked last week to lead the Office of Special Counsel, charged with fighting corruption and fighting federal whistleblowers.

Ingrassia has trafficked in conspiracy theories, including, as early as Oct. 8, 2023, describing the Hamas attack and ensuing war as a “psyop,” as well as defending prominent antisemites including Kanye West, Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes.

Several Republican members said they were not deeply familiar with Ingrassia’s record but planned to dig into it further before his nomination hearing.

“We just got news of the nom[ination] coming forward. Those [comments] are obviously concerning and we’ll have our staff doing a full background check, but those are, on their face, concerning,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told Jewish Insider.

Tillis was a vocal opponent of Ed Martin, previously Trump’s nominee to be U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., over his defense of those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, including a known Nazi sympathizer. Amid that opposition, Trump withdrew the nomination.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said he wasn’t familiar with Ingrassia but that he planned to take a deeper look at him. “I’m not familiar with his record, but I don’t like the guys you just named or their views,” Hawley said, referring to Tate and Fuentes.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) expressed surprise about Ingrassia’s history and affiliations, and said he would “certainly monitor the situation.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) argued on Wednesday that sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program can’t be separated from other sanctions on the regime as part of a nuclear deal, comparing the approach apparently being taken by the Trump administration to that of the Obama administration.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said in congressional testimony this week that talks with Tehran have revolved solely around Iran’s nuclear program and have not addressed its sponsorship of terrorism or its ballistic missile program, but said that sanctions related to terrorism and missiles would remain in place if those issues are not addressed in a potential deal.

“The Obama administration invented the category of ‘nuclear sanctions’ as an excuse to give the Ayatollah whatever he wanted for a nuclear deal,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said to Jewish Insider. 

“It has nothing to do with how Congress passed or past presidents implemented sanctions against the Iranian regime, which was to use our most powerful sanctions against the full range of Iran’s aggression. President Trump rightly refused to certify and then withdrew from the deal because he said that lifting these ‘nuclear sanctions’ gave Iran too much for too little benefit,” he continued.

Congressional Republicans argued in the past, when the original nuclear deal included a similar formula, that the distinctions between nuclear and non-nuclear sanctions were largely specious. Those same lawmakers have maintained that any new funding the regime received would ultimately fuel proxy terrorism and regional destabilization, regardless of the targets of those sanctions.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) expressed confidence that the Trump administration understood that any deal must be multi-faceted, though he noted that Congressional Republicans haven’t been briefed on the talks.

“I have to believe at the end of the day, they realize that it’s not just about enrichment, but it’s all the other enabling capabilities, because the reality is the world’s a dangerous place and if they had that underlying capability, maybe then they’ll build their own bomb,” Tillis told JI.

“We got to support Israel. Iran uses proxies to attack America and Israel, they chant ‘Death to America.’ So what they’ve got to do is they’ve got to stop enriching uranium, that’s number one. And number two, we’ve got to make sure they have no money to give their proxies,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said when asked his position on a deal.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told JI he hadn’t kept up with Rubio’s testimony, but said that addressing Iran’s proxy terrorism is crucial.

“Iran’s the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Israel is fighting proxies all the way around them. The entire region’s destabilized. Egypt is struggling economically because of the Houthis and what they’re doing,” Lankford said. “The proxies are the problem in the area and you can’t disconnect Iran and the regime and what they’re doing in the entire region to destabilize the region.”

Another Senate Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak candidly, said he has faith in Rubio, but that an arrangement as outlined by Rubio would require “an awful lot of trust built into it, and I don’t trust Iran.”

“Money is obviously fungible. And the whole point of proxies is you can do whatever you want without doing whatever you want [directly],” the senator said. “There’s just an awful lot of trust built into.”

The senator said, “There’s probably a time where I’d be willing to give them a little bit of room, but they’re an awfully long ways down the road, so I don’t know. I just hope they keep a very, very tight grip on a very, very short leash.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told JI that, “I like the American position, the administration’s position of no enrichment, complete dismantlement … and [would] have to include their missile program.”

“Anything short of that would be inadequate,” he added.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) similarly argued that a deal around Iran’s nuclear weapons would likely include addressing Iran’s pursuit of intercontinental ballistic missiles. He added that Iran should not receive any sanctions relief without addressing its nuclear buildup.

Other senators seem to be focusing their attention more on ensuring that dismantling Iran’s enrichment remains a red line for the United States.

“At the end of the day, we’ve got to see what the final package is,” Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), who recently led nearly all Senate Republicans on a letter insisting on full dismantlement, said. “The biggest issue is going to be the enrichment part. If we can crack the enrichment nut, that’s a big deal.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) similarly said, “The president’s been very clear. I think the Republican side of the aisle in the Senate has been very clear. No enrichment, zero, zilch, nada, no centrifuges. The Iranian leadership doesn’t need it. They can import uranium for civil nuclear energy, so they can either take it or leave it. We can do it the easy way, the hard way.”

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, one of the most popular officials in the state, announced on Monday he will not challenge Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) when he is up for reelection in 2026, dealing a blow to Senate Republicans, who were hoping his candidacy would have given Republicans an edge in a critical battleground.

Kemp said in a statement on Monday that he had “decided that being on the ballot next year is not the right decision for me and my family.”

“I spoke with President Trump and Senate leadership earlier today and expressed my commitment to work alongside them to ensure we have a strong Republican nominee who can win next November, and ultimately be a conservative voice in the US Senate who will put hardworking Georgians first. I am confident we will be united in that important effort, and I look forward to electing the next generation of leaders up and down the ballot here in the Peach State who will keep our state and nation headed in the right direction in 2026 and beyond,” Kemp said. 

National Republicans and top Senate GOP leaders had been lobbying Kemp to consider challenging Ossoff for months, with a recent poll commissioned by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution showing Kemp with a narrow advantage over the Democratic senator.

Without Kemp in the race, the GOP nominee is more likely to appeal to the right-wing activists that play an outsized role in today’s Georgia Republican party. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has been mentioned as a possible candidate in the race. Other potential candidates include: Reps. Mike Collins (R-GA), Rich McCormick (R-GA) and Buddy Carter (R-GA), all of whom are among the most conservative lawmakers in the House.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a more moderate alternative, has also been mentioned as a potential candidate. 

Pro-Israel elements of the Democratic Party expressed an openness to backing Kemp over Ossoff, if the governor ran for the Senate. Ossoff’s vote last year to block military aid to Israel alienated many Jewish voters in the state, and the backlash played a role in his rejection of additional similar measures targeting the Jewish state when they came up for a vote last month. 

But Kemp’s decision not to run could help push skeptical Jewish Democrats and independents back toward Ossoff’s column, especially if the Democratic senator works more closely with the Jewish community in the state, which is strongly supportive of Israel.   

A spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said in a statement: “Brian Kemp’s decision to not run for Senate in 2026 is yet another embarrassing Republican Senate recruitment failure as they face a building midterm backlash where every GOP candidate will be forced to answer for Trump’s harmful agenda.”

Jewish Insider’s senior congressional correspondent Marc Rod contributed to this report.