Rep. Mike Lawler says the only circumstance he can imagine that would justify sending U.S. ground troops into Iran would be a mission to secure the country’s enriched‑uranium stockpile.
“The question moving forward with respect to any troops on the ground would be: For what purpose?” the New York Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And I think the only purpose that I could see would be to get at the enriched uranium.”
He added that any such mission would first need to be briefed to Congress in a classified setting.
His comments came after the U.S. military overnight rescued the second American pilot whose F‑15 fighter jet was shot down over Iran. Mr. Lawler praised the operation as a testament to U.S. military capability, but noted that the use of special forces inevitably raises broader questions about how far a ground presence could expand.
President Trump, in a prime‑time address on Wednesday, did not rule out deploying U.S. forces on the ground in Iran.
Regarding legal authority, Mr. Lawler backed the administration’s position. He argued that the War Powers Act gives the president 60 to 90 days to conduct military operations and said Congress was notified within 48 hours of the initial incursion. He dismissed Democratic criticism as hypocritical, pointing to Democrats’ support for President Barack Obama’s seven‑month campaign in Libya.
“This is not an illegal military operation,” Mr. Lawler said. “The president is fully within his authority to conduct this military operation.”
Still, he acknowledged that authority has limits. If the conflict stretches beyond the 60‑ to 90‑day window, Congress would need to act — and he said he would support doing so.
Sen. John Curtis, Utah Republican, has also raised concerns, saying last week that the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to declare war and that allowing a president to wage an open‑ended conflict without such a declaration renders that authority meaningless.
“I support the president’s actions taken in defense of American lives and interests,” Mr. Curtis wrote in a Deseret News op‑ed. “However, I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60‑day window without congressional approval.”
Mr. Lawler also said he would vote to fund the military operations through the normal appropriations process, calling himself “a yes for funding our military and ensuring they have the capabilities to perform their operations.”
