Seven months into a war that was promised to last six weeks, House Speaker Mike Johnson stood before reporters to defend a conflict that a majority of Americans now oppose. His defense leaned on characterizations of Iranian untrustworthiness — including a claim about religious sanction for deception that contradicts Islamic doctrine — while the administration's own intelligence assessments have long undermined the nuclear threat used to justify the initial strikes. Wars, history reminds us, are rarely as brief or as certain as those who launch them believe, and the distance between a leader's
House Speaker Johnson defends Iran war, makes disputed claims about Iranian religion
They'll sit at a negotiation table and say something. They'll walk away and do the opposite.
Mark
Why would Johnson make a claim about Islam and lying when it's so easily fact-checked?
Mimi
He was trying to delegitimize Iranian negotiators—to say they operate by a different moral code. It's a rhetorical move to justify why diplomacy failed and military action was necessary.
Luke
But the claim is just wrong. Islam forbids lying. So either he misspoke badly, or he was being deliberately misleading. We should name that clearly.
Mark
The poll shows 54 percent disapprove. That's a majority. How does Johnson respond to that?
Mimi
He doesn't, really. He pivots to the nuclear threat and to the idea that allies should help. He's not engaging with the public's actual concern.
Luke
And here's the thing—his nuclear threat argument is contradicted by Gabbard's own statement from June. That's in the record. So he's defending a war using a justification his own intelligence chief said wasn't true.
Mark
Trump said six weeks. It's been seven months. That's a massive miss.
Mimi
It is. And the economic pain is real—gas prices, inflation. People feel it. Johnson's argument that allies will step in doesn't address why Americans are paying more.
Luke
We should be careful here. The administration says they've gotten oil flowing through the strait. That's their claim. But prices are still high. Why? Is it market psychology, global factors, or something else? The source doesn't fully explain that gap.
Mark
Does Johnson address the midterm threat directly?
Mimi
No. He doesn't mention it at all. But it's hanging over everything. Republicans could lose the House and Senate partly because of this war.
Luke
That's important context, but it's also speculation about what voters will do. We know the conflict is unpopular. We don't know yet how it will affect the elections.
The Pulse
- A war sold to the American public as a six-week operation has stretched into its seventh month with no resolution visible on the horizon.
- Speaker Johnson's defense of the conflict veered into factually incorrect religious claims about Iranians, drawing immediate scrutiny and no response from his office.
- The administration's own intelligence chief testified before the war began that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon — a direct contradiction of the justification Johnson still publicly repeats.
- Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz sent energy prices surging, and American consumers continue to absorb elevated costs at the pump, feeding broader inflation across the economy.
- With 54 percent of Americans disapproving of the military campaign, Republican control of both chambers of Congress faces a genuine threat in November's midterm elections.
- Allied nations — NATO members and Arab states — have so far declined to share the burden of keeping the strait open, leaving the US increasingly isolated in a conflict it cannot quickly exit.
Seven months into a war that was promised to last six weeks, House Speaker Mike Johnson stood before reporters to defend a conflict that a majority of Americans now oppose. His defense leaned on characterizations of Iranian untrustworthiness — including a claim about religious sanction for deception that contradicts Islamic doctrine — while the administration's own intelligence assessments have long undermined the nuclear threat used to justify the initial strikes. Wars, history reminds us, are rarely as brief or as certain as those who launch them believe, and the distance between a leader's promises and a conflict's reality is often measured in months, dollars, and eroding public trust.
On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson stepped before reporters to defend President Trump's decision to go to war with Iran in February — a conflict now seven months old and growing more unpopular by the week. Johnson praised Trump's leadership, then pivoted to a sweeping dismissal of Iranian credibility, claiming that Iranian negotiators say one thing at the table and do another when they leave. He went further, suggesting that lying to adversaries is, for some Iranians, a matter of religious practice. That claim is false — Islam explicitly prohibits deception — and Johnson's office offered no clarification.
The war was promised to last six weeks. It has not. A University of Massachusetts poll released the same week showed 54 percent of Americans now disapprove of the military campaign, and the political consequences are sharpening: Republican majorities in both the House and Senate are at risk heading into November's midterms.
The justification for the war has also grown harder to sustain. In June of last year, then-intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard told Congress that Iran was not weaponizing its nuclear program and that Supreme Leader Khamenei had not authorized a weapons effort since suspending it in 2023. Days later, the US military bombed Iran's three main enrichment facilities. Johnson on Tuesday still argued the war was necessary because Iran was close to a nuclear weapon — a position his own government's intelligence community does not share.
The economic fallout has been real and lasting. When Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the initial strikes, oil and gas prices spiked globally. American consumers have not seen relief, and the elevated energy costs have rippled through the broader economy as inflation. Johnson suggested allied nations have more to lose from a closed strait and should step in — but NATO members and regional Arab states have declined to do so.
The gap between what was promised and what has unfolded continues to widen, and with elections approaching, the administration's defenders find themselves arguing for a war the public has largely stopped believing in.
Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House, stood before reporters on Tuesday and offered a defense of President Trump's decision to launch a war against Iran in February. The conflict had become increasingly unpopular, and Johnson was asked to address the mounting criticism. His response moved quickly from praise—calling Trump a leader with "steady hands at the wheel"—to a characterization of Iranian negotiators that drew sharp lines between trustworthiness and deception.
"The problem has been that the Iranians simply cannot be trusted," Johnson said. "They'll sit at a negotiation table and say something. They'll walk away and do the opposite." He then ventured into religious territory, suggesting that for some Iranians, lying to those they disagree with is "apparently part of their religion." The claim is factually incorrect. Islam explicitly forbids lying, a principle known as haram. Johnson's office did not respond to requests for comment on the statement.
The war itself has proven far more durable than promised. Trump had said the conflict would last six weeks at most. By late August, it had entered its seventh month with no resolution in sight. A University of Massachusetts poll released on Monday showed that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the military actions against Iran. The conflict threatens Republican control of both the House and Senate in November's midterm elections, a political liability the party cannot ignore.
The administration's core justification for the war has been undermined by its own intelligence assessments. In June of last year, Tulsi Gabbard, then Trump's intelligence chief, told lawmakers that Iran was not weaponizing its nuclear program. "The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2023," Gabbard stated. Within days, on June 22, 2025, the US military bombed Iran's three main enrichment facilities. Trump claimed the strike had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program. Yet Johnson, in his Tuesday remarks, continued to argue that the war was "necessitated" because Iran was close to obtaining a nuclear weapon—a claim at odds with the intelligence community's own position.
The conflict has had tangible economic consequences for Americans. When Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz in response to the initial strikes, oil and gas prices surged both domestically and globally. Although US officials have said they have since loosened Tehran's grip on the waterway and moved millions of barrels of oil through daily, American consumers continue to pay elevated prices at the pump. The increased energy costs have fueled broader inflation across the US economy. Johnson suggested that allied nations—NATO members and Arab states in the region—have a greater stake in keeping the strait open and would be willing to assist. So far, they have refused to do so.
The gap between the administration's promises and the conflict's reality has widened with each passing month. Trump promised a swift resolution. Seven months later, there is no end in sight. The public has grown skeptical. Intelligence assessments contradict the nuclear threat narrative. And the economic toll continues to mount, even as Johnson and other administration allies defend decisions that remain deeply unpopular with the American electorate heading into the fall elections.
Notable Quotes
The Iranians simply cannot be trusted. They'll sit at a negotiation table and say something. They'll walk away and do the opposite.— House Speaker Mike Johnson
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2023.— Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's then-intelligence chief, in June 2025
Want the full story?
Read the original at Al Jazeera ↗
Politics & Governance