Most Democratic members of Congress have criticized Donald Trump’s decision to go to war against Iran, with some describing Trump’s move as flagrantly illegal and others arguing that he should have at least come before Congress to lay out a clear plan of action. (In the days since the war began, Trump has offered numerous reasons for launching the war: the threat posed by Iran’s missile systems and its nuclear program, Iran’s funding of terrorism, Trump’s own desire for “regime change.”)
But Congressman Greg Landsman, a second-term Democrat from Ohio, is one of the few members of his party who has actively supported Trump’s war. Landsman, a strong supporter of Israel, has backed the coördinated American-Israeli military action and stated that “this was the moment” for war against the Iranian regime, citing the country’s abysmal human-rights record. “I hope these targeted strikes on the Iranian regime’s military assets ends the regime’s mayhem and bloodshed and makes way for this lasting peace in the region,” Landsman wrote in a statement on Saturday, just hours after the war began.
I recently spoke by phone with Landsman. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what the U.S. and Israel hope to accomplish with the attack; why he trusts the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio; and whether Trump cares about civilian casualties.
Why, unlike most of your Democratic colleagues, have you chosen to support the current war with Iran?
Well, I wouldn’t describe it as that. I’d describe it as what I hope is a very limited operation where we are destroying their weapons systems, particularly their missiles and their bombs, to stop the ongoing mayhem, chaos, and violence that this regime has caused.
So you wouldn’t describe it as a war?
No. No. I mean, it’s definitely a military intervention, and so far it has been targeted at those missile systems,and core military infrastructure. And my expectation is that remains the case and that this gets wrapped up fairly quickly. However, I do support and have introduced, with a few others, a War Powers Resolution. It allows for short-term targeted strikes and requires Trump to come to Congress for a vote. This is a constitutional democracy, and he needs to act accordingly. And it specifies no ground troops. We should not be doing nation-building.
How does your War Powers Resolution differ from the one that Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie are putting forward, which you oppose?
That would require the immediate removal of all military assets, which would make our American service members, our bases, and our allies very vulnerable. Ours requires the President to get a vote within thirty days if this thing were to continue or move beyond the very targeted strikes on military assets.
I’m not sure how targeted it has been. Israel recently said that it dropped more bombs in the past three days than it dropped in the Twelve-Day War against Iran in June. Trump has promised that bigger strikes are coming. There have already been civilian casualties. Americans have already lost their lives. This is the biggest story in the world.
Oh, sure. I’m not downplaying it at all. It’s a very big deal. I’m just saying that the strikes have been focussed, I believe, entirely on military assets.
Well, we are also assassinating the heads of the regime.
Well, the head of the regime was, in this case, the Ayatollah, who is the chief military commander who also happens to be a theocrat with apocalyptic plans for the world.
Sure, a very bad guy. I just meant that it seems like we were trying to effectuate regime change, which the President himself has said, rather than just knock out military targets.
Yeah. And let me also be clear. I’ve never trusted Trump on this, or on the economy, or on keeping us safe in general.
You are trusting him on this, though, right?
No.
You aren’t?
I’m trusting the military and our generals. I’m trusting what I understand to be the operation and the people leading it—that is, the generals and our military and our allies.
You’re trusting the people leading the operation who don’t include the President?
Well, I don’t trust that guy. Yeah.
He’s the Commander-in-Chief, right?
Sure. Yeah. But I can’t [trust him]. And he’s proven that over the past couple of days, being all over the place, unlike everybody else involved in this.
You saw the leaks before the war suggesting that the military, especially chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, were either opposed to the attack on Iran or did not think this could be done very easily, right?
Those are two different things. I can’t imagine anybody thought that this would be simple. If it were simple, it would have been done already.
Do you feel like you understand why Trump wanted to wage this war, or “military intervention,” as you described it?
Yeah, I think so. I think the Administration has writ large articulated that it is entirely about these weapon systems, which to me makes sense.
Nuclear weapons or weapons systems?
All of it. That is not just a threat, but an existential threat to us and our allies.
An existential threat?
Well, to our allies and potentially to us, yeah. There is a point of no return, arguably, with this regime, where if you continue to allow them to stockpile missiles and launchers and all of the things—
You think Iran having missiles and launchers is an existential threat to America?
I would love to finish my sentence. I was going to answer that question. This seems a little combative, which is understandable.
Sorry. You’re right. I shouldn’t have interrupted.
That’s fine. So their ability to get out in front of and stop Iran’s ability to do what they clearly are intending to do, which is to stockpile these missiles and launchers, which will create a shield for them to do the nukes, which would be an existential threat.
