Updated June 19, 2025 at 2:04 PM EDT
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., wants the U.S. to remain on the sidelines of Israel's war with Iran. The ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee told Morning Edition that there are too many unknowns that could put American troops in harm's way.
Smith believes that Iran is likely pursuing a nuclear weapon, saying it's not a secret that the Islamic regime has been "massively increasing their enrichment capacity."
However, he warns of unintended consequences of a military strike.
"If we get involved in this war, Iran will start hitting U.S. troops and then it becomes unpredictable, which is why I do not think that we should do this," he said. There are roughly 40,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, according to the Pentagon.
President Donald Trump is reportedly considering striking one of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. The Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plant is an underground facility and considered vital to Iran's nuclear program. Publicly, the president remains uncommitted.
"I may do it, I may not do it. Nobody knows what I want to do," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. "But I can say this: Iran's got a lot of trouble and wants to negotiate."
While the administration is weighing all its options, members of Congress are split on how to move forward.
Smith's comments align with those of many other top Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Senator Chris Coons, D-Conn. Ocasio-Cortez joined more than a dozen other Democrats by signing on to a bipartisan resolution that prohibits any military involvement in Iran without Congress' authorization. The resolution was introduced by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Cali.
At this moment, Massie remains the only Republican who signed on to the resolution.
"A war between Israel and Iran may be good for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's domestic politics, but it will likely be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region," Coons said in a statement.
Based on their public statements, many lawmakers agree with the president that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, but their opinions diverge when it comes to U.S. military involvement.
"By law, the president must consult Congress and seek authorization if he is considering taking the country to war. He owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement in the region," five senior Democratic senators said in a joint statement.
Several Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., supports a potential military strike, with or without congressional approval.
"If that is what is required to finish the job, I fully support it," Lawler told NPR on Wednesday.
In a conversation with NPR's Steve Inskeep, Rep. Adam Smith spoke about his views on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program and whether Congress should approve any U.S. military strike.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
Steve Inskeep: Are you persuaded that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program, which is the allegation Israel made as they began the war?
Rep. Adam Smith: Well, I think that's probably likely. I mean, as we move through this whole process, Iran has always been doing more. We've discovered that Iran has been doing more than they've said publicly. And it's not actually a secret that they've been massively increasing their enrichment capacity. As I think one expert put it, there's no country in the world that doesn't have a nuclear program that has as much enriched uranium as Iran has. So clearly, they're trying to get right up to the edge.
Inskeep: Experts on this have made a distinction between gathering the material, which they clearly are doing in a massive way, as you say, and actually starting a program to to build a bomb. You think it is likely they are doing the latter?
Smith: I think Iran's position is we're going to go right up to the edge, but we haven't made a decision yet. But the concern is they get right up to the edge, and then they are in some cases, you know, a mere weeks, if not days away from making that decision and then getting a bomb. Look, Iran took an enormous chance by enriching all this uranium. The IAEA came out and said they're not in compliance with what they said, so there is reason to have concern that Iran could, in fact, be days or even weeks from making that decision and then having a bomb. I think that's fairly widely agreed upon.
Inskeep: The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Of course, in recent history, Congress has generally avoided that responsibility. But in this case, is it necessary for Congress to speak in some way?
Smith: I believe so, yes. I don't think that we should get directly involved in attacking Iran. And if the decision were to be made to do that, I think under the Constitution, Congress' approval, our approval should be required.
Inkeep: And that is true not just for a full scale war, but for an airstrike. Because we had somebody on our air yesterday, [Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y], who said a mere airstrike is something different than a full scale war.
Smith: I feel strongly that if we're going to attack Iran in that way, there's no argument that this is an inherent right of self-defense. There's no existing AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) that would justify this. I feel strongly that legally the president should come to Congress. But the history of this is clear. Presidents do what they want to do … so as a practical matter, I think President Trump would assert the right to do this without Congress and probably get away with it. But that doesn't change the fact that I think the law and the Constitution are clear, that you should not be able to do that.
Inskeep: Do we have to commit to a full scale war if it comes to that?
Smith: Aside from the legality and the constitutionality of this, there are two big problems with the U.S. getting involved. No. 1 is that, you know, what's it going to take to completely destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program? I can tell you, I've been briefed on this for years, and there's always been considerable concern that destroying is going to be vastly more difficult than people realize. How much damage can you do to this particular site? And also, does Iran have other sites? We don't think they do. But then again, we didn't think they had this one until we discovered that they did. No. 2, if we attack Iran, we have facilities, we have bases in Qatar, in Bahrain, in Iraq, in Syria that Iran has said they will target. If we get involved in this war, Iran will start hitting U.S. troops and then it becomes unpredictable, which is why I do not think that we should do this.
Copyright 2025 NPR
