Which members of Congress support or oppose the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran — based on their own stated positions?
The U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran this morning — codenamed Operation Epic Fury (U.S.) and Roaring Lion (Israel). President Trump declared "major combat operations" with the explicit goal of regime change. Strikes have hit Tehran, Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and Kermanshah. Iran has retaliated with missiles targeting U.S. bases in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE, and at Israel.
Congressional reaction is breaking sharply along party lines with critical exceptions on both sides. A bipartisan War Powers Resolution (Kaine-Paul in Senate, Massie-Khanna in House) was already pending floor votes scheduled for next week.
What this analysis does: Rather than take anyone's word for it, we looked at the stated defense and foreign policy positions of all 547 members in our database to predict where each member likely stands. Members with confirmed statements from today are flagged.
We predicted the direction right, but they went much further than their record suggested.
The libertarian/America First wing sees this as Iraq 2.0. Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are leading the charge with war powers resolutions. Andy Biggs (AZ), Cynthia Lummis (WY), Jim Banks (IN), and Mary Miller (IL) have records opposing foreign intervention. Rick Scott (FL) was predicted to oppose based on his China-first stance, but has since praised the strikes — a key mismatch. Tim Burchett (TN) is a wildcard — previously opposed Iran intervention but then endorsed Trump's earlier strikes. At least 9 Republicans in the dataset have anti-intervention signals.
John Fetterman (PA) openly praised the strikes — the most visible Democratic crossover. David Scott (GA) previously opposed the Iran nuclear deal and supported Saudi arms sales. Juan Vargas (CA) advocated for military escalation in Syria and opposed the Iran deal. News reports indicate war powers votes were expected to see "defections from members in both parties and chambers." Several moderate Democrats may quietly acquiesce.
Senate: Kaine-Paul-Schumer resolution pending — demands vote to block U.S. forces in hostilities against Iran. House: Massie-Khanna bipartisan resolution pending. Both were scheduled for floor votes next week before strikes began. Votes expected to be close with bipartisan crossovers. Republican leadership is considered very unlikely to schedule the votes. Democrats may attempt procedural maneuvers to force them.
Positions were classified using each member's stated defense/military and foreign policy positions from TheWatchdogs accountability database, which tracks all 535 members of Congress across social media posts, voting records, official statements, and media transcripts.
Scoring: Explicit Iran hawkishness (+2), pro-Israel military support (+2), strong military stance (+1), foreign policy hawk label (+2), party baseline (R: +1, D: -1), opposition to military intervention (-2), non-interventionism (-2), demands for congressional authorization (-2), diplomacy preference (-1). Members scoring ≥2 classified "Likely Supports," ≤-1 "Likely Opposes."
Important caveats: 218 members (40%) lacked sufficient defense/foreign policy signals for confident classification — the vast majority of these are Republicans whose positions on Iran specifically are unknown. This is predictive analysis based on prior positions; actual votes may differ significantly. The "Likely Supports" count of 77 almost certainly undercounts Republican support, as most of the 193 unclear Republicans will likely fall in line with party leadership. Similarly, some moderate Democrats may cross over. "CONFIRMED" tags reflect statements reported by news outlets on February 28, 2026.
What this isn't: This is not a poll or a whip count. It's a receipts-based analysis of what these members have said and done on defense and foreign policy before today's events.