Sanders Blasts Netanyahu and Trump Over U.S. Involvement in Iran Conflict, Cites Heavy Costs

ERBIL (Kurdistan24) - U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders posted on his official X account on Saturday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu led President Donald Trump into a "horrific & unpopular war" with Iran and that Trump now lacks a way to exit the conflict.

Sanders, an independent senator aligned with Democrats, highlighted the toll, including more than 1,200 Iranian civilians killed, 13 U.S. troops killed, 3.2 million Iranians displaced, 773 killed in Lebanon, over 10,000 Iranians injured and $16.5 billion spent in 12 days.

Netanyahu led Trump into this horrific & unpopular war. Now he doesn’t know how to get out.

Cost so far:

• 1,200+ Iranian civilians killed
• 13 U.S. troops killed
• 3.2M Iranians displaced
• 773 killed in Lebanon
• 10,000+ Iranians injured
• $16.5B spent in 12 days

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 14, 2026

Sanders' post came amid ongoing U.S. military operations against Iran, which began under Trump, who was re-elected in 2024 and took office in January 2025, according to reports from Fox News and Reuters.

The operations included joint U.S.-Israeli airstrikes that killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials, destroyed much of Iran's navy, air force and missile capabilities, and targeted thousands of military sites, as detailed by Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.

Trump has demanded "unconditional surrender" from Iran and described the actions as a "war," though some Republicans have characterized it as limited "combat operations" rather than a full-scale war, per coverage in Politico and NBC News.

The operations were launched to counter Iran's alleged threats, including attacks on U.S. troops, disruptions to shipping and proxy activities in the Middle East, based on analyses from The Hill and MSNBC.

The conflict has sparked intense partisan debate in Congress, particularly over war powers, funding and escalation risks, as midterm elections approach, according to Axios and PBS NewsHour.

Polls indicate the conflict is broadly unpopular among Americans, with 74% opposing the sending of ground troops, Republicans split at 52% opposing and 37% supporting, and Democrats overwhelmingly against at 95% opposing, as reported by Quinnipiac polls via fact-checking sites and Time magazine. Overall, 86% of Democrats oppose the strikes, while 85% of Republicans support them, per Quinnipiac polls and Axios.

Sanders, one of the most prominent critics of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, has repeatedly warned that Netanyahu is attempting to drag the United States into a regional war with Iran and other armed groups. His Saturday post underscored the financial and human burden, stating that Netanyahu led Trump into the conflict and that the president "doesn't know how to get out."

Sanders' criticism aligns with his longstanding opposition to Washington's military support for Netanyahu.

Republicans have generally supported the operations, rallying behind Trump and framing them as necessary for national security, though some have expressed concerns about the duration and costs, according to Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.

They argue that the strikes are essential to respond to Iran's "imminent" threats, including attacks on U.S. forces, proxies waging war on Israel and disruptions to shipping, as per The Hill and Quinnipiac polls.

The goal of the operations, Republicans say, is to degrade Iran's capabilities, with reports indicating that 90% of Iran's missiles have been destroyed, and to prevent nuclear acquisition, based on reports from The Hill, Axios, MSNBC and Reuters.

Figures such as Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Tom Cotton have pushed for sustained pressure on Iran, while military experts have highlighted Iran's use of "psychological warfare" and AI along with proxies, according to The Hill and MSNBC.

Many Republicans emphasize that the engagement is not a "war" but targeted operations, with hopes for a short duration described as "weeks, not months" and without involvement in nation-building, as described in NBC News, Politico, Fox News, Reuters and The Wall Street Journal. Victory, they note, is defined by Trump's terms, such as unconditional surrender or securing key oil routes like the Strait of Hormuz, per NBC News, The Hill, Politico, Fox News and Reuters.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has opposed nation-building efforts, stating that the U.S. lacks the resources and that it is not America's responsibility, as reported by NBC News. Republicans also point to economic and strategic benefits, saying the actions protect global energy supplies and could "change the paradigm" in the Middle East by ending prolonged terror threats, according to Politico, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters.

They have shrugged off additional funding needs, focusing instead on domestic priorities but indicating support if required, per Politico and The Wall Street Journal. Republicans have criticized Democrats' opposition as driven by anti-Trump partisanship rather than genuine security concerns, blocking War Powers resolutions and accusing them of weakness, as covered by The Intercept and Politico.

However, not all Republicans are unified in their support. Sen. Rand Paul has opposed borrowing funds for the war, calling it unwanted, and figures like Tucker Carlson have warned against prolonged involvement, according to MSNBC, Politico, The Hill and Fox News.

On the Democratic side, lawmakers largely oppose the military actions, viewing them as unauthorized, escalatory and lacking a clear strategy, according to The New York Times and Politico.

They argue that the strikes violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, requiring congressional approval for sustained hostilities, as stated in reports from PBS NewsHour and The Intercept.

Senate Democrats have pushed resolutions to halt the operations unless authorized by Congress, emphasizing that Trump launched an "illegal, dangerous war" without oversight, per Axios and Time magazine.

For instance, after classified briefings, leaders like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the administration's justifications "insufficient," noting that the briefings raised more questions than answers, according to PBS NewsHour and Time magazine.

House Democrats passed a War Powers Resolution, though with some defections including Reps. Jared Golden, Henry Cuellar, Greg Landsman and Juan Vargas voting against it, but the measure failed in the Senate, as covered by The New York Times and Politico.

Democrats have criticized the lack of a clear plan or endgame, saying Trump has "no plan" and focusing on vague critiques rather than outright moral opposition to avoid internal divisions, according to The Intercept and Axios.

They warn of a potential "forever war" with rising costs, spikes in oil prices and broader economic fallout, demanding public hearings for transparency on the war's duration and objectives, per Politico and The New York Times.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the conflict a "manufactured crisis," while figures like Rep. Ro Khanna have opposed it as a "war of choice," as reported by The Intercept and PBS NewsHour.

Democrats highlight the risk of escalation, including the potential deployment of ground troops, which they uniformly oppose, and the impacts on U.S. lives, allies and global stability, according to Axios and The New York Times.

They note the 74% public opposition to sending troops and frame the conflict as distracting from domestic issues like the economy, per Quinnipiac polls via fact-checking sites, The New York Times, Axios and Time magazine. Some Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, expressed fury after briefings, calling the situation "so much worse than you thought," as quoted in Time magazine.

While Democrats are unified on procedural issues, deeper foreign policy splits exist, with a few supporting or abstaining from outright opposition to the strikes, according to The New York Times and Politico. This ambiguity, analysts note, has allowed Republicans to set the narrative, per analyses in The New York Times.

The broader context of the conflict traces back to Trump's re-election and his assumption of office in January 2025, when tensions in the Middle East entered a new phase, according to the provided details. Trump had previously promised to end wars, but he now faces a multi-front engagement in the region.

Sanders and several other lawmakers in Washington believe the costs of these conflicts have created a significant financial and human burden on the United States, with damages continuing to mount without a prospect for resolution in sight.

The operations have drawn scrutiny for their rapid escalation, with initial airstrikes targeting key Iranian leadership and military infrastructure, as reported by Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.

The destruction of Iran's navy, air force and missile sites has been cited as a key achievement by supporters, with estimates of 90% missile degradation from The Hill and Axios. Yet opponents question the long-term strategy, pointing to the absence of defined exit criteria beyond Trump's demand for unconditional surrender, per NBC News and Politico.

Polls from Quinnipiac, as referenced in fact-checking sites and Time magazine, underscore the partisan divide, with strong Republican backing at 85% for the strikes contrasted against 86% Democratic opposition. This split has influenced congressional actions, including the failed War Powers Resolution in the Senate after passage in the House, according to The New York Times and Politico.

Republican leaders like Graham and Cotton have advocated for continued pressure, arguing that Iran's use of proxies and psychological tactics necessitates a firm response, as per MSNBC and The Hill. They frame the operations as preventive, aimed at halting nuclear ambitions and securing shipping lanes, with Reuters and The Wall Street Journal detailing the strategic objectives.

In contrast, Democratic calls for oversight include demands for public hearings, as noted in Politico and The New York Times, to clarify the administration's plans amid fears of economic repercussions from oil price fluctuations. Schumer's post-briefing comments highlighted insufficient justifications, raising concerns about transparency, according to PBS NewsHour.

Internal Republican dissent, such as Paul's opposition to funding and Carlson's warnings, reflects concerns over fiscal impacts and prolonged engagement, per MSNBC and Politico. Similarly, Democratic defections in the House vote indicate nuances within the party, with some members like Golden and Cuellar breaking ranks, as reported by The New York Times.

The conflict's unpopularity, particularly the opposition to ground troops at 74% overall, has been a focal point for critics, with Quinnipiac polls showing Democrats at 95% against such deployments, via Axios and Time magazine. Republicans, while split, have 37% supporting troops if needed, but emphasize limited scope to avoid broader commitments, according to NBC News.

Trump's description of the actions as a "war" contrasts with some party members' preference for "combat operations," highlighting semantic efforts to downplay the scale, per Politico. The operations' aims include countering proxy threats in Lebanon and elsewhere, with 773 reported killed there, as part of the broader toll cited by Sanders.

The financial outlay of $16.5 billion in 12 days underscores the rapid expenditure, fueling debates over additional funding, which Republicans view as secondary to security gains, per The Wall Street Journal. Democrats, however, tie this to domestic neglect, arguing the resources could address economic priorities, according to The New York Times.

As the midterm elections loom, the debate has intensified, with Axios reporting on the political stakes for both parties. PBS NewsHour has covered the push for resolutions, noting the constitutional arguments central to Democratic opposition.

The human costs, including 13 U.S. troops killed and over 10,000 Iranians injured, have been emphasized by critics like Sanders, who positions the conflict as avoidable and driven by Netanyahu's influence. His post also noted 3.2 million displaced Iranians, amplifying the humanitarian dimension reported across sources.

Republican responses portray the actions as a paradigm shift, potentially ending cycles of terror, as per Politico. Yet Democratic warnings of a "forever war" persist, with Newsom's "manufactured crisis" label echoing broader skepticism, according to The Intercept.

Khanna's characterization as a "war of choice" aligns with calls for de-escalation, per PBS NewsHour. Warren's reaction to briefings as "so much worse than you thought" captures the alarm among some Democrats, as quoted in Time magazine.

The operations' initiation followed alleged Iranian threats, including attacks on U.S. forces and shipping disruptions, as analyzed by The Hill. MSNBC has detailed Iran's proxy activities, which Republicans cite as justification for the strikes.

In sum, the conflict represents a shift from Trump's earlier promises to end wars, now confronting a multi-front challenge, with Sanders and others highlighting the mounting burdens.