Sen. Kaine on Iran War: “Have we learned nothing?”

Summary

Bulwark Takes — “Sen. Kaine on Iran War: ‘Have we learned nothing?’”

Podcast: Bulwark Takes
Host: Sam Stein
Guest: Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Date: March 4, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Sam Stein speaks with Senator Tim Kaine about escalating U.S. military involvement in Iran, the effort to pass a War Powers Resolution restricting unauthorized military action, and lessons not learned from past Middle Eastern conflicts. Senator Kaine draws on his 13 years of War Powers advocacy and personal military family connections, making a passionate case for Congressional responsibility in decisions of war. The conversation includes insights into Congressional culture, partisan dynamics, military rationale, constituent concerns, and the enduring consequences of recent and past wars.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why War Powers Matter—And How Rarely Congress Acts

• Kaine recounts witnessing troop deployments as Virginia Governor, vowing to never support "stupid wars" without debate.
• Emphasizes his bipartisan push for the War Powers Resolution:

  “I would do everything I can to make sure we didn't go into war, except for a really good reason after a congressional debate and vote, and that we should do everything possible to avoid stupid wars.” (01:06)

• Highlights his duty:

  “I hold [the President] to the constitutional standard. I feel like I'm duty bound to do it by my oath, but also by my connection to our troops.” (01:41)

2. Congressional Reluctance: Political Self-Preservation Over Principle

• Members of Congress historically avoid war votes:

  “Congressional lack of backbone goes back to Whigs and Federalists... As much as they loved George Washington, they didn’t even trust him to make a decision about war on his own.” (03:14)

• Describes the tendency to “hide under their desk, let a president do it, blame him if it goes wrong, if it goes right, say, hey we were with you all along.” (03:36)
• Kaine says the Constitution intends Congress to have the courage to debate and own life-or-death decisions.

3. Partisan Shifts and Iran versus Venezuela

• Sam and Kaine contrast recent Venezuela and Iran debates:
  • More Republican openness to a vote on Venezuela; less on Iran, despite similar circumstances.
  • Trump administration's pressure changed votes: “Donald Trump really whipped hard...he agreed to finally have a public hearing...two of the five [Republicans] switched to nos.” (05:17)
• Perceived differences explained by the reputation of “bad actors”:

  “Nobody’s mourning that the ayatollah is gone. But just to remind people...we said Iraq was a bad actor and it was, we were liberators and mission accomplished after a couple weeks. And then it turned into a decade.” (05:29)

4. Learning (or Not) from Iraq and Afghanistan

• Senator Kaine recounts staggering U.S. losses:

  “We lost 14,000 troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 66,000 injured, hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, $8 trillion of US taxpayer money.” (05:39)

• Warns Middle East wars “produce a power vacuum,” using recent history to question optimistic premises.

5. Making Congress Go on the Record, and Accountability

• Kaine explains why forced votes matter:

  “Make people go on the record and then they're going to be held accountable by their voters for whether they were for war or against it.” (06:28)

6. Administration’s Rationale for Striking Iran

• Cites news from Senate briefings:
  • Rubio stated, as justification: “Israel was going to attack, and if Israel attacked, we would face some retaliation. So we decided to go ahead and go in.”

  “We should not let any nation, even an ally, drag us into war or determine the timing... That's about the worst rationale for war that I've ever heard come out of anybody's mouth.” (08:56)

• Kaine identifies core questions: legality, planning, targeting errors (notably, an attack on a school reportedly killing children), and lack of clear objectives for Iranian regime change.

7. Constituent Concerns and Real-World Consequences

• Talks about interactions with Virginians abroad:
  • Abrupt State Department alerts urging Americans to leave the Middle East.
  • Example: a friend in Saudi Arabia, and Virginia Commonwealth’s Doha campus switching to online due to fear of retaliation.
  • Families of service members face uncertainty as deployments are extended:

    “Our sailors haven't seen their families in months. And I am getting questions from family members. What's the goal? What's the plan? When will I see my kid? When will I see my life?” (13:33)

8. Democratic Party Culture: From Iraq to Today

• Sam asks how Democrats approach war differently today compared to 2002–03.
• Kaine:

  “I think the vibe is, have we learned nothing from 25 years? I mean, I think that is the vibe.” (14:34)

• Recalls how the 2002 Iraq war vote was timed for political reasons, fueling his own passion for prevention and deliberation.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “There shouldn't be an easy path lane or a shortcut on going to war.” (01:56, Kaine)
• “If we won't do that work...” (04:14, arguing that Congressional cowardice is morally unacceptable)
• “These wars in the middle east, you might think they're going to be smooth sailing or that you're up against a bad actor, but they can produce a power vacuum.” (05:48)
• “Have we learned nothing from 25 years?” (14:34, on Democratic outlook post-Iraq)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 00:00–01:45: Host intro; Kaine’s core War Powers motivation rooted in past service and family ties.
• 01:45–03:40: Why Congress avoids war votes; historical and constitutional analysis.
• 04:30–06:00: Comparison of Congressional attitudes between Venezuela and Iran.
• 06:00–07:00: Forced votes, the politics of accountability.
• 08:30–10:00: The administration’s rationale for Iran, leaked from briefings.
• 10:00–11:45: Kaine’s approach to asking the administration about targeting, planning, and goals.
• 11:45–13:45: Constituent distress, evacuation efforts, sailor family burdens.
• 13:45–15:10: Democratic Party culture and lessons learned since 2003.

---

Tone and Language

The conversation is candid, urgent, and tinged with frustration—especially from Senator Kaine, whose language alternates between wonky legalism and personal, moral appeals. Host Sam Stein brings out Kaine’s deep institutional memory and personal stake, making the gravity of war palpable for listeners.

---

Summary Takeaway

Senator Tim Kaine is exasperated by Congress’s repeated failure to exercise its constitutional obligations in matters of war, insisting that experience—from Iraq and Afghanistan to the latest escalation with Iran—should be a cautionary tale against “stupid wars.” He calls on both parties to own their votes and decisions, refuses to let politics trump principle, and warns that neither allies nor adversaries should dictate American military action. The unlearned lessons from decades of conflict remain, he fears, dangerously relevant.

Transcript

[A]

Hey everybody, it's me, Sam Stein, managing editor at the Bullock, and I am joined by Senator Tim Kaine of the great Commonwealth of Virginia. I got that right this time. We're here to talk about what's happening in Iran and the effort to pass a War Powers Resolution. Senator, thanks for doing this. I really appreciate it. You and I have had this conversation a couple times throughout your time in public office because you're a champion of actual congressional input into acts of war. Yes, it appears yet again that Congress is going to skirt the idea of voting on what is clearly an act of war by Pete Hexis on a mission. Why should we feel any different or any more confident that the War Powers Resolution would pass this go around? And how do you keep banging this drum knowing that it's likely to have been met by defeat?

[B]

SAM so a couple of things. When I became senator in 2013, I came out of an experience experience where I'd been governor and had watched thousands of my National Guard troops deploy into Iraq and Afghanistan. And I went to deployments and I went to homecomings and I went to wakes and funerals and I just vowed when I became a senator that I would do everything I can to make sure we didn't go into war, except for a really good reason after a congressional debate and vote, and that we should do everything possible to avoid stupid wars. And my, my advocacy around this, I may or may not be successful. I haven't yet been successful in this. I've been at it for 13 years. Whether it's a Democrat or Republican president, I hold them to the constitutional standard. I feel like I'm duty bound to do it by my oath, but also by my connection to our troops. As you know, Virginia, very military, heavy state, very pro military. I got a kid in the, in the armed services and so I just believe there shouldn't be an easy path lane or a shortcut on going to war. In this particular case, we have a War Powers Resolution, as you point out, it's a privileged motion that the statute gives us to challenge a President who has taken the nation into hostilities without a congressional authorization. In that circumstance, a president has initiated hostilities without Congress, you can force a vote on the floor of the Senate. That's what I'm doing together with my Republican colleagues. RAND Paul, that vote will be tomorrow and it's a simple page long resolution. No war against Iran without a vote of Congress. I will get virtually every Democrat. Republicans, you know, kind of have to look in the mirror and listen to their constituents and decide Whether they think more war in the Middle east is a good idea, I think it's a horrible idea. But even if you think it's a good idea, you shouldn't want a president to do it unilaterally without a. Without a rationale and without a plan, which is President Trump is now proceeding.

[A]

So the conventional wisdom is that members don't like voting on these things because they don't want to be on the record having supported a overseas military engagement that could go terribly wrong. Is that your assessment of your fellow colleagues?

[B]

Yes, Sam. And actually, that congressional lack of backbone goes back to Whigs and Federalists. It's not just 2026. Even though the Constitution is super clear on this. And both the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention minutes make very plain that as much as they love George Washington, they didn't even trust George Washington to make a decision about war on his own because it's too consequential. Members of Congress realized pretty early in our nation's history that war votes are tough, that even under the best of circumstances, people might die. And under lesser circumstances, you can really get into a jam. And so members of Congress would, in many instances, prefer to hide under their desk, let a president do it, blame him if it goes wrong, if it goes right, say, hey, we are with you all along. But as I, as I said, not only because it's in the Constitution, but there is a value judgment expressed in that provision that says if we're going to send our sons and daughters into war where they face death or injury, we should only do it if we have the guts to have the debate in front of the American public and say, this is a mission, it's worth it. And if we won't do that work,

[A]

let me just jump in. I'm kind of curious because in a way, this. So we had this version of this debate a couple weeks ago, a month ago, on Venezuela.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And in a way, correct me if I'm wrong, there appeared to be more appetite on the Republican side for putting this to a vote than there is now. Now, we don't know the final outcome of tomorrow's vote, obviously, but, you know, we have people like Josh Hawley who've come out very quickly and said, not going to vote in favor of this. They believe that President Trump has the authority to do what he wants, whereas Hawley was more hemming and hawing prior to the Venezuela vote. Why do you. What do you account for here? To. To make. To understand the differences in circumstances?

[B]

That's a hard One, when I first time I brought up a war powers resolution in Trump term. Two, I only got one Republican vote on the Venezuelan vote. A month or so ago, I got five votes. But then Donald Trump really whipped hard. He canceled the second invasion in Venezuela. He agreed to finally have a public hearing and send his secretary of state up to brief congress in public. Not classified. And then two of the five switched to nose. I ended up with three votes. This one seems like it's harder and that may be because people think Iran is a bad actor. And look, nobody's mourning that the ayatollah is gone. But just to remind people, you know, we said Iraq was a bad actor and it was, we were liberators and mission accomplished after a couple weeks. And then it turned into a decade. I mean, we lost 14,000 troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 66,000 injured, hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, $8 trillion of U. S taxpayer money. These wars in the middle east, you might think they're going to be smooth sailing or that you're up against a bad actor, but they can produce a power vacuum.

[A]

Well, that's all the more reasons why they don't want to vote for it. Right? They don't want to be on record.

[B]

That's all the more. And that's all the more reason than they should. And so while they may vote against my resolution, they will all have been forced to vote. I learned early if, if you let people off the hook by, well, I'm concerned or I want a briefing or I wouldn't, I would have done it differently. That's just too easy and too cheap. Make people go on the record and then they're going to be held accountable by their voters for whether they were for war or against it. At this moment in time, Bulwark takes

[A]

a sponsored by upwork. One of the biggest growth hacks I've come across is realizing that you don't have to do it all yourself. The fastest growing businesses aren't doing more, they're just delegating smarter. And that's exactly what upwork lets you do. Whether you need a developer for a sprint, a data analyst for a project, or marketing help you can turn on and off, Upwork gets you there really fast without the headache of a full time hire. Upwork is a one stop platform to find, hire and pay expert freelancers across the web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations, and much, much more. You browse profiles, review past work and you get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. Upwork cuts down on operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments all in one place so you can focus on actually running your business. Novel. I know it's free to sign up and posting a job is easy. Thousands of growing businesses already trust Upwork for everything from one off projects to ongoing support. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That is Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's up w o r k.com upwork.com well, let's talk let's talk a bit about briefings because there's been a few, I think, of what's happened in Iran up on the Hill. We saw Hegseth and Rubio, among others up there. To the extent that you're able to reveal it, what have you been told about the rationale for going in there? I know there's been about three or four, maybe five different ones. But what is the if you had to sort of say this is where the administration is in terms of the rationale for what they have done, and this is where the administration is in terms of how long it's going to take and what they're hoping to produce. Can you, can you do that?

[B]

I can. I can. Sam. So I haven't been to a briefing yet. I will go to one this afternoon. So everything I'm going to tell you right now is not based on what I heard in the skiff. It was based on news accounts, the news accounts of the Rubio briefing of the Gang of Eight, sort of the the key leadership chair and ranking on the key appropriations and national Security Committee said they were asked the question, well, why now? What was imminent about now? And the Rubio answer was deeply troubling. Well, Israel was going to attack, and if Israel attacked, we would face some retaliation. So we decided to go ahead and go in. We should not let any nation, even an ally, drag us into war or determine the timing that the US Goes to war. So the fact that Israel is going to attack anyway, that's no reason for us to send our own kids in to face risk of death and injury. So sadly, we've already seen six service members killed. We shouldn't do this because, well, Israel was going to attack anyway. That that's about the worst rationale for war that I've ever heard come out of anybody's mouth. This was public reporting from that briefing I didn't attend. So is it accurate or not? I don't know. But if that was said. That would. That should cause Major.

[A]

All right, let's play a game here then, because you will get a briefing. You'll get a chance to ask, I presume, some members of the administration some questions about what is going on here. What's the one. If you only got a chance to do one question, what would it be?

[B]

Sam, here's the way they do it. They. They jam the presentations. They give you an hour. They do presentations for 45 minutes and with 100 senators in the room, then they take.

[A]

Well, let's say you got asked, but

[B]

you know the legal rationale. What was. What was imminent? What are your targeting criteria? The news is out that we. We struck a school in 170, possibly little school children were killed. The US is usually really good at targeting and avoiding hitting women and children. We've been very precise in the boat strikes in the Pacific and Caribbean on that, even though I don't think those are legally authorized. I do acknowledge there's been an effort thus far successful to minimize killing women and children. So how strike a school killing kids? Have we changed our targeting criteria or is it a mistake? But why did Kuwait shoot down three US F15s? They're a friendly nation. Normally they're not shooting down American aircraft. It was a mistake. That suggests some lack of planning or preparation when that happens. So the rationale, the planning and preparation, and then especially what's going to happen next? Or. Or do you even care? You assassinate the leader of a country, do you care who comes next? Do you have a favorite? What's your prediction? If it's just the regime back in power, like Delsey Rodriguez is back in power in Venezuela and the regime continues to oppress Iranian citizens every day, are you going to claim that this was a good outcome? So I think you're going to see a lot of questions about what I know.

[A]

We're kind of pressed on time. I have two more questions here. One is you have constituents in Virginia that I presume at least some of them are living abroad in the Middle East.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

There was an alert that went out yesterday from the State Department encouraging Every American in 14 Middle Eastern countries to get out. It was rather abrupt and. And then this morning, the US Embassy in Jerusalem said, we cannot help you get out. We don't have the capacity to do that.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Are you getting incoming from your constituents who are in the Middle east about how to get out? What are the interactions you're having with them, how you trying to assist in their departure from the region?

[B]

It's Chaotic, Sam. And I can't speak for my entire team. I have a constituent service team that's taking a lot of incoming. And I'm so focused on this vote tomorrow that I haven't checked in with them. But I have had two interactions just myself. One is somebody in this in Saudi Arabia who's a friend who was trying to board a flight to Washington. Could he get out? And the good he reached out to me and said, what do I need to do? Before I could even figure it out, he was on a plane to D.C. thank goodness. And then my hometown university, Virginia Commonwealth University, has a campus in Doha, Qatar, and they've switched all their classes to online because they're so worried about Iranians sort of, you know, broadening the net in terms of retaliatory attacks. And we've seen that happen. So these things come home. The, the, say the sailors on the USS Ford, the carrier strike group, heavily from Virginia, and this is a carrier that's been out, supposed to be out for seven months. I think we're passing nine or 10 months. It's on its way to maybe an 11 month deployment with some major issues on board that need to be solved. And our sailors haven't seen their families in months. And I am getting questions from family members. What's the goal? What's the plan? When will I see my kid? When will I see my life?

[A]

All right, last question. You're old, but you're not that old. Sorry, don't want to be insulting. You were not 68. Well, you were not in, you were not in Congress in 2002, 2003, let's just put it that way.

[B]

Right.

[A]

That was a different time for Democrats, obviously, and I think you alluded to it where there's this perception that the Iraq war would go swimmingly well or that you had to be patriotic and support it. And so a lot of luminaries in the party, leading figures, did vote for it. In fact, it ended up being the biggest point of distinction between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton a couple years later. You know, I don't sense there is that mode of thinking right now among Democrats. And I'm kind of curious if you can give us a sense of what the vibe is like, for lack of a better word, inside the party.

[B]

Yeah, Sam, I think the vibe is, have we Learned nothing from 25 years? I mean, I think that is the vibe. When I came into the Senate in 2013, one of the reasons I so embraced this, we got to get it right on war is watching the mistaken vote on O2. Remember, President Bush brought the vote to Congress right before the midterm in October, even though the attack didn't happen until March. Wait, why bring the vote in October? It was designed to affect the midterms, and I watched it at the time with no intelligence that I had access to. I was. I was lieutenant governor. But I thought, man, there's got to be a better way to make a decision about going to war than to force a vote right before a midterm election. So I came into Congress very much shaped by Iraq and Afghan decisions, and that has made me extremely passionate about no easy pass lane, no shortcut. You got to get it right and let Congress sign their name to it before we order people to risk their lives.

[A]

All right, Senator Kane, we've been doing this on and off for many years now. I always appreciate when you come and join us, talk about this stuff. Thank you for doing this. And thank you for everyone who watched, as always, do sign up for the Bulwark, where you get great conversations just like this. Talk to you soon.