Marshall backs – Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, a Republican hawk, echoed President Donald Trump’s new position that Iran should be allowed to defend itself and have ballistic missiles—an abrupt pivot from the White House’s earlier goal of destroying those capabilities. The shift
On a television set Wednesday morning, Sen. Roger Marshall sounded like a man stepping off a line he once stood on.
Asked twice on CNN’s “The Source” whether Iran should be able to defend itself. the Kansas Republican answered plainly: “I do.” Then he pushed back against the idea that the key issue is whether Iran has ballistic missiles—arguing instead that Iran must be able to defend itself. warning that without that capability. the conflict would turn into something worse.
“I prefer that they not,” Marshall said, making clear he wouldn’t want Iran armed with ballistic missiles. “I certainly don’t want them to have long-distance missiles. I don’t want them to have nuclear-armed missiles.” But the pivot came in the next breath. “I don’t think that’s the key issue here. I think that they have to be able to defend themselves.”.
The shift landed in the middle of a larger White House turn. Marshall’s comments echoed President Donald Trump’s latest stance on Iran. which Trump delivered to reporters Wednesday when he said it would be “unfair” for Iran not to have ballistic missiles “if other countries have them. ” a position he repeated while discussing the memorandum of understanding Trump has since signed.
The war that set the terms of this debate began in February. when joint U.S.-Israeli strikes kicked off a campaign with a stated aim of keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The fighting produced effects that have reached beyond battle lines. Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz. the waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes—triggering spiking gas prices and fears of a global energy crisis.
Trump announced the tentative memorandum on Sunday, describing it as an effort that could prevent economic fallout. He signed it ahead of a dinner Wednesday hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles. The deal has already unsettled several GOP hawks on Iran. largely because it does not address Iran’s ballistic missile program in the way the White House previously framed the war.
The memorandum’s language lays out what both sides would do on several fronts. It includes agreements for Iran to “not procure or develop nuclear weapons” and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. It also calls for the U.S. to lift its naval blockade there and “terminate all types of sanctions” against Iran. In parallel, it requires both parties to cease military operations “on all fronts.”.
But it makes no mention of Iranian ballistic missiles. That omission matters because the destruction of Iran’s missile capabilities had been a central White House objective in the earlier phase of the war.
Trump has since defended the pivot publicly. During his attendance at the G7 summit in France, he justified why the approach has changed on that front.
On “The Source,” Collins pressed Marshall again, coming back to the same question twice. The Kansas senator’s response made the consequences of the pivot sound existential rather than tactical—less about disarmament and more about preventing the conflict from grinding on.
“Otherwise, we turn this into a forever war,” Marshall said, explaining that ending it would require extreme measures—“short of boots on the ground, of surrendering everything — an unconditional agreement, if you will.”
He also tied his stance to the deal’s political durability, saying, “this agreement has the support of all of the — most of the countries in the Middle East,” and arguing that it would give the agreement “more of a long-lasting relationship, a long-lasting success.”
Trump’s own argument on Wednesday was rooted in the calendar and the economy. At the G7 summit, he told reporters the memorandum would avert “a worldwide depression.” He also warned of a looming energy crunch: “Also, we run out of [oil] reserves in about four weeks.”
“You know, there are reserves all over the world,” Trump continued, adding, “and we would really run out.” Then he painted the alternative in stark terms: “And there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it, and you want to see bedlam?”
The memorandum creates a clear tradeoff on paper: sanctions and blockade relief tied to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz and restricting nuclear ambitions—while leaving ballistic missiles untouched. Marshall’s comments land right at that gap. where previous White House goals emphasized destroying those capabilities. but the new line frames them as part of what Iran should be allowed to retain.
For now. the war’s immediate drivers—Strait of Hormuz access and nuclear restraint—are reflected directly in the memorandum’s terms. What remains unsettled is whether the shift on ballistic missiles will satisfy the hawks who helped shape the war’s earlier aims. or whether it will simply redraw the battlefield into something longer. calmer on paper and harder to unwind in practice.
Roger Marshall Iran ballistic missiles Trump memorandum of understanding Strait of Hormuz sanctions naval blockade GOP hawks G7 Emmanuel Macron Palace of Versailles
So basically they’re giving Iran missiles? Great.
I saw the headline and I’m confused. If we’re trying to stop Iran from having missiles, why is the senator backing it now? Sounds like another “we won’t do it” thing that somehow means we are.
Wait, doesn’t he say he doesn’t want them to have long-distance missiles, but then says they should be able to defend themselves… like which is it? Also Trump saying it’s unfair if other countries have them sounds like the logic my uncle uses at the grill. And if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz again, that’s gonna hit gas prices here too, right?
This is why I don’t trust any of these deals. One day they’re destroying capabilities, next day it’s “defend themselves” which is just a fancy way of letting it happen. Marshall used to be more hawkish about stopping it and now he’s talking like Iran should just have the same stuff everyone else has. Meanwhile I’m just trying to figure out if this means we’re already backing them or if we’re backing Israel, because the article got cut off right where it says something about Hormuz and I’m not reading the rest.