Reed Warns Trump’s War in Iran Risks Repeating the Failures of Iraq

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor warning that President Trump's war against Iran risks repeating the strategic mistakes of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Sen. Reed cautioned that while Iran poses a serious threat, the United States must avoid entering another prolonged and destabilizing war without a clear strategy.

Sen. Reed called on the Trump Administration to clearly explain its objectives, the costs of the conflict, and whether it will rule out deploying American ground forces into Iran. He also urged Congress to reassert its constitutional role in decisions of war and peace.

A video of Senator Reed's remarks may be viewed here.

A transcript of Senator Reed's floor speech follows:

The Stakes of War with Iran

U.S. Senator Jack Reed

Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

REED: Mr. President, 23 years ago this month, President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. The speed, power, and sophistication of the American military campaign was astounding. Within three short weeks, the United States had crushed the Iraqi Army and collapsed Saddam Hussein's entire government. Our military victory was swift and total, as expected.

A few months before the invasion, I delivered a speech here on the Senate floor. I spoke about the evil of Saddam's regime, the dangerous threat the Iraqi military posed, and the importance of confronting Iraq through all practical means. But I also cautioned against the pitfalls of the Bush Administration's strategy, which I considered to be terribly misguided.

As I observed at the time: "Our judgment cannot rest simply on [Saddam's] unalloyed evil. We must consider our actions more broadly. Will we enhance the stability and security of the region? Will we strengthen our security not just for the moment, but for the future as well? What kind of precedent will we establish? . . . We will decisively defeat Iraqi military forces in any conflict. The skill and courage of our forces, aided by superb technology, will overwhelm Iraqi resistance. The military outcome is certain, but the costs and the consequences are uncertain and could be quite grave."

Mr. President, I take no satisfaction in that warning. I wish Iraq had been the brief, decisive victory the Bush Administration promised it would be. The reality turned out to be two decades of destruction, death, and instability that has cost our nation dearly.

I am standing here today because the Trump Administration's war against Iran raises the same concerns and more.

Iraq-Iran Parallels

The parallels between March 2003 and March 2026 are striking and cannot be wished away - no matter how loudly the Trump Administration shouts down those of us who have noted as much. In both cases, the United States launched a massive air campaign with thousands of strikes on air defenses, command centers, leadership targets, and weapons infrastructure. In both cases, the early military results were dramatic and impressive. And, in both cases, the administration stood before the cameras and promised the American people that the hard part was done.

Indeed, in 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed, "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Similarly, just a few days ago, Secretary Hegseth said, "You can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be eight, it could be three." There are many other parallels.

But the differences between 2003 and 2026 are where my alarm for this war begins.

In 2002, President Bush made a case for war. I disagreed with it profoundly. In fact, I voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq - one of only 23 senators to do so. But we had a vote. The Bush Administration came to Congress, presented intelligence - however flawed, testified before committees, and sought the buy-in of the American people. President Bush went through the steps that any responsible commander-in-chief must, and this body deliberated and decided. I had the information I needed to cast my vote. Every senator did.

Importantly, I would note that even with all that deliberation in 2002, President Bush still failed catastrophically. He tied our military up in a disaster that took decades and hundreds of thousands of lives to partially unravel.

Today, President Trump has bypassed or ignored this most necessary process in a democracy. The American people woke up last Saturday to find themselves at war with Iran. There was no vote. There was no Authorization for Use of Military Force, nor intelligence shared with Congress, the representatives of 330 million Americans. And no coalition of allies and partners were assembled or brought into the planning. In fact, several of our closest friends in the Middle East were, by all accounts, as surprised as anyone by the joint American and Israeli attack. Many of them - Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Jordan, Iraq, and others - are suffering the consequences of Iranian retaliation without having been involved in the decision that triggered it. And the Administration has left thousands of Americans stranded in harm's way without a realistic means of getting home.

As impressively as our military has performed, I must ask my Republican colleagues this: do you believe that the Trump White House has devoted even a fraction of the strategic effort that the Bush Administration put into Iraq? Because the Bush administration at least thought about it. They were wrong, but they undertook preparations for more than a year. What is the evidence of that same seriousness with today's military operation?

Reality of War with Iran

Iran is not Iraq. I want to be clear about this, because it matters enormously to what comes next. Saddam Hussein's government, for all its brutality, was a hollowed-out institution propped up by fear and oil. The Iranian regime is something altogether different. It is deeply entrenched by half a century in power and is woven into the economic, military, and religious fabric of a nation of 93 million people. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is not a conventional military that will dissolve because the Ayatollah has been killed. Just the opposite. It has shown its willingness to absorb pain and endure. It is an ideological institution with deep roots, considerable resources, and a demonstrated willingness to direct violence across the entire region.

Iran's missile and drone arsenal dwarfs anything Iraq possessed, and it has a vast network of proxy forces, from Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, to the Houthis in Yemen. These forces, although diminished and disrupted from the past several years of fighting, represent a military capacity that has shown it can cause real pain for our troops, our allies and partners, and the global economy. We have already experienced deadly Iranian retaliatory strikes against American bases across the Middle East. Just because their missile strikes have slowed should not give us false confidence that they are finished. This regime is cunning. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil supply flows, is now essentially closed. Energy prices are spiking and stock markets are falling as a result. Further, cyberattacks on our critical infrastructure - financial systems, energy grids, military networks - are very possible.

We cannot overlook another fact. The administration has refused to rule out deploying American ground forces into Iran. Let me say that again: the administration will not rule out putting American boots on Iranian soil. That kind of invasion would not just be a difficult campaign. It would be a catastrophe that would make Iraq seem straightforward by comparison.

Further, there has been speculation about a potential special forces operation to seize Iran's enriched uranium. This would be exceedingly difficult and would require deploying hundreds of our forces deep into Iran at great peril. Even if successful, such an operation would not change the government of Iran and, although dealing a serious setback to the Iranian nuclear program, would likely harden the fanatical approach of the IRGC.

Strategic Incoherence

Like in 2003, I am disappointed by the lack of scrutiny from my Republican colleagues. There are basic questions that remain unanswered. What are President Trump's objectives? I have listened carefully to this administration, and their rationale has shifted constantly - from protecting Iranian protesters, to eliminating Iran's nuclear program, to destroying its ballistic missile arsenal, to what now appears to be regime change. President Trump declared last week that he wants no less than unconditional surrender and he should have a role in choosing Iran's next leader. Those comments reveal a stunning failure to understand Iran and its history.

I worry that the President and his advisers have convinced themselves they are immune from the lessons of history. Destroying Iran without a credible post-war plan is not likely to create a stable, democratic state. Instead, it could create a chaotic power vacuum that drags in the rest of the Middle East. Ironically, it could further entrench the most radical elements of Iran's leadership to be even more organized and ruthless, and could send the message that acquiring a nuclear weapon is the ultimate path to avoiding President Trump's unpredictable wrath.

Beyond the lack of strategic planning, I am also troubled by the military readiness and financial costs of this conflict. The Senate Armed Services Committee has sent formal inquiries to the Department of Defense requesting projected costs, which by some estimates could run as high as one billion dollars a day. Reports indicate that the administration is already preparing a supplemental appropriations request to Congress for emergency funding - potentially more than 50 billion dollars - to backfill the massive munitions loss and battle damage incurred in the opening days of this war. But let me be clear: I will not support a blank check for this war of choice.

Precedent and Future Threats

In the same 2003 speech I discussed earlier, I asked several questions that I believe history has since validated: "We are debating Iraq today, but will we apply this preemptive doctrine to Iran or North Korea tomorrow? How do we prevent others from adopting this same strategy if we have enshrined it as the centerpiece of our policy? How do we counsel India to refrain from preemptively attacking Pakistan - or vice versa? From New Delhi or Islamabad, the threat looks 'sufficient,' and striking first is enticing."

That question is no longer hypothetical. Today, China is watching our war against Iran with intense interest as it considers its posture toward Taiwan. Russia is watching as it calculates what remains possible beyond Ukraine. When the United States launches preemptive wars - whether in Iran, in Venezuela, or perhaps Cuba - without bothering to make any public case or good faith legal argument, we diminish American power. We give permission for other nations to throw their own military weight against their neighbors. We hand every ambitious autocrat in the world the same justification we have just used ourselves. The precedent we set today will outlast this presidency by decades.

Make no mistake: the Iranian regime is a brutal, corrupt institution that has denied its people basic rights for nearly 50 years. I do not mourn Ayatollah Khamenei. I do not minimize the genuine threat that Iran's nuclear program and missile arsenal represent to the United States and our allies. The day the Iranian regime is replaced by a government that genuinely serves the Iranian people will be a good day for the world.

But recall that President Trump ripped up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - a real diplomatic framework that was constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions. He refused to negotiate a replacement. Just two weeks ago, the Omani Foreign Minister, who served as a key intermediary between Washington and Tehran, reported that there had been significant progress in the ongoing negotiations just before these strikes began. The President broke the diplomatic solution and is now trying to bomb his way out of a crisis of his own making.

He had other, better, choices. He chose war. And now he owes the American people a full accounting.

I would ask my colleagues who support this war same questions I have been asking administration leaders over the past two weeks. What is the theory of victory? What does success look like, and how will we know when we have achieved it? What legal authority does the administration believe it is operating under, given that this Congress has not authorized this conflict? What is the day-after plan for Iran - for its government, its 93 million citizens, its borders, its proxies? What is the plan if this regime does not fall - if the Revolutionary Guard fights on for years? And will the administration commit that American ground forces will not be sent into Iran?

To my Republican colleagues: I urge you to ask these same questions and to demand answers from the administration. History is watching, and in 20 years you too may wish you held the President to greater account.

Conclusion

So far, seven American servicemembers have been killed. Hundreds more have been wounded. To their families, this chamber owes our deepest condolences and our solemn commitment to ensure their sacrifice is honored. America's sons and daughters have gone into harm's way carrying the full weight of this nation's trust. They deserve leadership and a strategy worthy of their service.

I had the great privilege to serve in the United States Army. I believe in American power, and I believe we should be willing to use it. I believe in American leadership on the global stage. But power without wisdom or restraint is just recklessness. And leadership without accountability or conscience is just theater; a performance to serve the President's ego - not America.

Mr. President, I would close by recalling the same words with which I concluded my remarks on this floor 23 years ago. "Great events will turn on our deliberations. But, at this moment, my thoughts are not on historic forces. Rather, I think about the young Americans who will carry out our policies. They are prepared to sacrifice everything. We owe them more than we can ever repay. One thing that we certainly owe them is our best judgment. I have tried to give them mine."

Mr. President, those words are no less true today. The young men and women the President has sent into this conflict are prepared to give everything. We owe them our unsparing questions. The President owes them a plan. We owe them the honest and rigorous judgment of the commander-in-chief and the leaders he has entrusted with the gravest decisions a democracy can make.

I have tried, again, to give my best judgment. I urge my colleagues to give theirs.

I yield the floor.

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Tweet