Asserting that President Donald Trump “owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement” in the Middle East, top Senate Democrats on Wednesday cautioned against potential U.S. strikes on Iran and argued that the president would need congressional authorization to conduct such an operation.

The signatories to the statement include Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrats on several key Senate committees and subcommittees. The statement suggests that a direct U.S. military intervention in Iran would see little support among Senate Democrats.

Trump has indicated that he is considering carrying out strikes inside Iran but has yet to make a final decision.

“​​Intensifying military actions between Israel and Iran represent a dangerous escalation that risks igniting a broader regional war,” the statement reads. “As President Trump reportedly considers expanding U.S. engagement in the war, we are deeply concerned about a lack of preparation, strategy, and clearly defined objectives, and the enormous risk to Americans and civilians in the region.”

The lawmakers said they are “alarmed by the Trump administration’s failure to provide answers to fundamental questions” and demanded that the president seek authorization from Congress “if he is considering taking the country to war.” 

“Congress has not provided authorization for military action against Iran – we will not rubberstamp military intervention that puts the United States at risk,” the Democrats said. “Our foremost duty is to safeguard American citizens wherever they reside and to protect our troops serving on the front lines. The United States cannot sleepwalk into a third war in as many decades. Congress has a critical role to play in this moment.” 

Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to bar military action against Iran, which could come up for a vote as soon as next week.

“[Trump] owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement in the region. We need a clear, detailed plan outlining the goals, risks, cost, and timeline for any proposed mission, as well as how he will ensure the safe evacuation of Americans in harm’s way all across the region,” they continued. “We demand immediate, detailed answers on these and other urgent matters to determine the way forward.

At the same time, the statement describes Iran as a threat to the U.S. and its allies that “must not be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon.” 

“The United States stands firm in our support for the continued defense of Israel, our partner and ally,” they said. “Our commitment to Israel remains ironclad and we urge the administration to defend Israel against the barrage of Iranian airstrikes, including through the provision of additional air defense capabilities.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says he doesn’t share the concerns of some in the isolationist wing of the Republican Party that U.S. engagement in Israel’s military operation to destroy Iran’s nuclear program would lead to a global war or another prolonged conflict in the Middle East, citing his confidence in President Donald Trump’s ability to avoid either outcome. 

The Missouri senator told Jewish Insider, following a conversation with Trump on Tuesday morning, that he trusted the president to navigate the situation without dragging the U.S. into a broader war, an issue that has caused growing consternation among commentator Tucker Carlson and other neo-isolationists in the GOP. Hawley has previously advocated for a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign engagement and aligns with the national conservative movement.

“I just don’t think that. I think Donald Trump is the least likely person to let that happen,” Hawley said when asked what he’d say to those who argue Trump’s actions will embroil the U.S. in a war. “I think he’s pretty careful, and I think he’s got a pretty good sense of our security interests, obviously our allies. So I feel pretty good with him in charge.”

Hawley made similar comments in a separate conversation with JI on Monday, saying at the time, “I think the president has a pretty clear assessment of what is good, what is in America’s interests. He’s been really clear on this, America’s interest and the world’s interest is to not have Iran have a nuclear weapon.” 

“There’s all kinds of paths to that, and that’s what the president is saying about negotiating. Iran ought to come and do this peacefully and give up their nuclear program. You can get there that way, but at the end of the day, we’re going to get to the point where they don’t have a nuclear weapon and they don’t have a nuclear program,” Hawley explained.

“If they keep going down this path, good luck,” he added.

Hawley also praised Trump’s approach to addressing the conflict and the threat posed by a nuclear Iran while cautioning against engaging in conjecture about what the Israelis were asking of the Trump administration. 

“I think the president has struck the right position, which is supportive of Israel’s right of self-defense, which is what this really is, and supporting them publicly while they defend themselves. I think that’s the right position to stick on. I know what the speculation is in the press about what Israel may want to do or not do next, but let’s see what they actually ask us for,” he told JI on Monday. 

Following his Tuesday conversation with Trump, Hawley reiterated his support for the president’s response since Israel first struck Iran last week. “He’s handled this situation very deftly. I think his message has been pretty clear, which is that Iran is not going to get a nuke. So they can either surrender their nuclear program peaceably, and he’s willing to [have] the United States facilitate that, or the Israelis are going to blow their program to smithereens. Right now they’re choosing the smithereens route. Doesn’t seem very wise to me,” he said.

Speaking to reporters later Tuesday, Hawley said he wouldn’t support Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution blocking the U.S. from taking military action in support of Israel’s operation against the Iranian regime, citing his opposition to the legislation broadly.

“I tend to think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and I don’t think the president needs preclearance to do one-off military strikes. That doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily a good idea, but I don’t think he needs preclearance from Congress. I don’t know quite how that would function,” Hawley said.