Senator Rand Paul Voices Concern Over Trump’s Threats to Bomb Iran Amid Protests
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., publicly cautioned against President Donald Trump’s recent threats to bomb Iran, warning that such military strikes may not achieve their intended goals and could inadvertently strengthen the regime amid ongoing protests. Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” on January 11, 2026, Paul expressed skepticism about the efficacy of military intervention in a situation marked by widespread civil unrest and economic turmoil in Iran.
“I don’t think I have ever heard a president say they may take military action to protect protesters,” Paul said. He referenced the 2020 U.S. strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, which sparked massive demonstrations chanting “death to America,” yet also underscored that many protesters remain vocally opposed to the country’s leadership. “They are shouting ‘death to the Ayatollah,’” Paul noted, emphasizing the complex dynamics within Iran’s population.
The senator urged caution, questioning whether bombing the Iranian government would rally citizens around the regime rather than weaken it. “If you bomb the government, do you then rally people to their flag who are upset with the Ayatollah, but then say, ‘Well, gosh, we can’t have a foreign government invading or bombing our country?’” Paul asked. He warned that foreign military action could unintentionally unify Iranians behind their leaders, undermining the protests aimed at demanding freedom and reform.
Paul also raised constitutional concerns about unilateral military action by the president. “There is this sticking point of the Constitution that we won’t let presidents bomb countries just when they feel like it,” he said. “They’re supposed to ask the people, through the Congress, for permission.” His comments highlight ongoing debates over the War Powers Resolution and the balance of authority between the executive and legislative branches in matters of war.
The senator further questioned the practical challenges of conducting military strikes amid protests. “How do you drop a bomb in the middle of a crowd or a protest and protect the people there?” he asked, underscoring the risk of civilian casualties and the difficulty of distinguishing protesters from government forces.
Iran has been gripped by protests in recent weeks, triggered by the country’s severe economic crisis and widespread dissatisfaction with the ruling regime. The U.S. government has been closely monitoring the situation, with President Trump signaling a willingness to intervene militarily if Iranian authorities escalate violence against demonstrators. Trump’s administration has stated that it is “locked and loaded” to act should Iranian forces continue to kill protesters.
Paul’s stance contrasts with the administration’s hawkish approach, reflecting a broader skepticism among some lawmakers about the wisdom and legality of military intervention without clear congressional authorization. His call to support freedom movements diplomatically rather than militarily aligns with a segment of policymakers advocating for restraint.
Experts note that any U.S. military action in Iran carries significant risks of regional destabilization and could complicate ongoing diplomatic efforts. The U.S. Department of State continues to monitor developments closely, emphasizing the importance of peaceful resolution and respect for international law.
As protests persist, the question remains whether external military pressure will aid Iranian citizens’ demands for change or inadvertently bolster the regime they seek to challenge. Senator Paul’s remarks serve as a reminder of the constitutional and strategic complexities involved in such decisions, urging measured consideration amid escalating tensions.
Leave a Reply