Speaking Tuesday, March 10, on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” the Texas Republican suggested the conflict could soon produce a change in Iran’s leadership, describing the campaign as a short-term “military engagement” rather than a prolonged war.
“I think we will see a new regime in Iran and a regime that is not focused on murdering Americans,” Cruz said. “And that transition, as I said, I think happens in the next few weeks.”
Cruz said U.S. and Israeli strikes had already significantly degraded Iran’s military capabilities during the early phase of the operation.
“What the President and the military has been able to do in the first nine days is decapitate the regime … take out their ballistic missile launch capability, take out their air defenses, achieve air superiority,” he said during the interview.
The senator also predicted the conflict would not become a long campaign.
“I think we’re likely to see military action last perhaps another couple of weeks,” Cruz said, adding that he did not expect “a many-month or many-year engagement.”
The remarks come as financial markets and governments worldwide react to the military confrontation. Oil prices surged earlier this week before falling after President Donald Trump suggested the conflict could end soon.
Brent crude briefly climbed to about $119.50 a barrel before falling to roughly $91.70 after Trump said the war on Iran was “very complete, pretty much,” according to reporting published Tuesday by The Guardian. The outlet also reported that European and Asian stock markets rebounded following the President’s remarks.
Despite the market reaction, Cruz suggested that the administration may continue to apply pressure until Iran’s governing structure changes.
“I think the administration is going to continue applying force, military and otherwise, until they get a regime there that is not a radical Islamist regime that is waging war with America,” Cruz said.
How the conflict is formally classified has also become part of the political debate in Washington.
Cruz described the fighting as a “military engagement,” while others have used stronger language. For example, Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin previously referred to the conflict as a “war” before quickly walking back that description.
The distinction carries legal and constitutional implications.
The question of whether every overseas military action qualifies as a war under U.S. law is hotly debated, and the answer affects how the War Powers Resolution of 1973 applies. The text of law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into “hostilities” and to provide periodic updates while military operations continue.
Over the decades, many in the executive branch have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, and federal courts have, thus far, not enforced it against the President. Article I of the United States Constitution vests power in Congress, but Article II designates the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and leaves most foreign policy questions to his discretion.
Nevertheless, President Trump submitted such a notification to congressional leaders after ordering strikes against Iran on February 28 as part of “Operation Epic Fury,” saying the action targeted missile sites, air defenses, and command infrastructure to protect U.S. personnel and regional allies, according to a report previously published by The Dallas Express.
The President’s letter to Congress said the strikes were intended to protect American interests and maintain the free flow of commerce through the Strait of Hormuz.
Cruz said the ultimate objective remains ensuring Iran is governed by leaders who are not hostile to the United States.
“America is not interested in running Iran,” he said. “But we are interested in not having leaders in Iran that are trying to murder Americans.”
