Ending U.S. Participation in Israel’s War of Choice
By Robert McDonald, Senior Legislative Researcher, A New Policy
Republican Senator George Aiken once told President Lyndon B. Johnson to “declare the United States the winner and begin de-escalation.” It was 1966. Two years later, the Vietnam War had escalated beyond control, destroying Johnson’s presidency and costing the lives of more than 58,220 American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. History never repeats itself, but it always rhymes.
Today, in 2026, that warning echoes and history rhymes again.
The United States is not on the brink of another Iraq. It is on the brink of something far more dangerous: a new Vietnam.
A War Driven by Partner Priorities, Not American Interests.
Like Vietnam, the United States is being drawn deeper into a war shaped by a partner whose objectives are not aligned with its own. However, this time, the dynamics are even more dangerous.
The State of Israel is not a weak partner struggling to survive. It is the dominant military power in the region, backed by decades of unconditional U.S. support. It is currently engaged in military strikes in Gaza, policies of displacement and control in the West Bank, operations to occupy southern Lebanon, and now in direct confrontation with Iran. In Iran, it has dragged the United States head first into a war it was unprepared for.
For the first time since the first world war the United States is not a leader of a coalition or partnership. In the US-Israel war with Iran, the United States is the junior partner. In doing so, it is becoming entangled in a war that is:
Predictably expanding beyond its original scope
Advancing Israeli strategic objectives, not American ones
Costing American taxpayers at the gas pump and farmers who need to fertilize their crops to feed the American people.
This is not a defensive posture. It is a strategic drift into a regional war that has already spread into 16 other countries and has a real cost on the American taxpayer.
Congress Has Already Provided the Exit
Unlike Vietnam, Congress has not been silent. It has already sent five clear off-ramps to members and the President. S.J.Res. 115, 116, 117, 118, 123, and H.Con Res 40 all direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress explicitly authorizes war. At their core, they reaffirm a basic constitutional principle: the United States does not go to war without Congress.
The differences between them are not about whether to end the war, but how much room they leave for continued involvement:
S.J.Res. 115 and 116: (116 failed to pass 47-53)
Limit U.S. support to intercepting retaliatory attacks and providing defensive materiel
Avoid explicitly elevating Israel over other allies and partners
S.J.Res. 117, 118, and 123: (118 failed to pass 47-53)
Expand allowable “defensive measures”
Explicitly center Israel in U.S. military considerations
S.J.Res. 117 and 123
Include carve-outs for evacuating and protecting U.S. citizens
H.Con. Res. 40 (introduced June 2025 in response to Israel's 12 day war)
Includes the broadest carve out to defend the United States, an ally, or partner from an imminent attack within the bounds of the War Powers Act. This is worded in a way that could permit pre-emptive U.S. attacks against Iranian targets in the future.
These are not symbolic resolutions. They are real legislative tools to stop escalation before it becomes irreversible.
One consistency has been maintained in Washington since the founding of the United States: A recognition that war should not continue without the consent of Congress and the American people.
The Moral Cost
The consequences of this alignment are already visible. In Gaza, Israeli military operations have resulted in mass civilian casualties, the destruction of infrastructure, and a humanitarian crisis that has shocked much of the world. Entire neighborhoods have been erased. Food, water, and medical access remain severely restricted.
At the same time, U.S. policy is increasingly shaped by the normalization of those tactics. The administration’s stated willingness to target civilian infrastructure in Iran reflects a dangerous shift, one that mirrors patterns already seen in Gaza.
This is how escalation spreads. Not just geographically, but morally.
The Cost of War
This war was not inevitable. It is a war of choice.
The United States faced no imminent threat requiring direct escalation against Iran. Diplomatic negotiations were ongoing, and peaceful alternatives existed. Instead, the United States chose deeper alignment with a regional military campaign driven in large part by Israeli strategic priorities.
The result is a war that:
Lacks clear objectives
Expands with each escalation
Risks becoming permanent
Dwight D. Eisenhower once described the cost of war in stark terms: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies… a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.”
And increasingly, Americans are asking a simple question: Why is there always money for war and for Israel, but never money for Americans?
The Choice Before Us
Today, Congress is offering a different path. It has created five clear legislative avenues for de-escalation. The question is whether they will be taken.
Because if they are not, the cost will not fall on abstract institutions or distant policymakers.
It will fall on:
The farmer watching fertilizer costs rise beyond sustainability;
The student burdened by lifelong debt;
The next generation who will bear the burden of paying for this war.
Every superpower faces a moment where it chooses between sustaining its power and overextending it.
History shows what happens when that choice is ignored.
History does not repeat itself, it rhymes, and it warns.
This is one of those moments.
