San Antonio and Texas officials split on U.S.-Israel strikes in Iran as retaliation fears rise

Statements from Texas’ top elected leaders reflect sharp divisions over strategy, legality and potential domestic security impacts.

San Antonio-area members of Congress and Texas’ governor issued competing assessments after the United States and Israel launched a major military operation inside Iran on Feb. 28, 2026. The strikes, described by the White House as the start of “major combat operations,” immediately triggered Iranian missile and drone attacks aimed at Israel and U.S. military sites across the Middle East, intensifying concerns about escalation.

Iranian authorities reported at least 201 deaths and more than 700 injuries by Saturday evening, with damage and casualties reported across multiple provinces. Iran also announced the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, though details released publicly were limited and the broader regional situation remained fluid into Sunday, March 1.

Supporters frame strikes as deterrence and regime pressure

Gov. Greg Abbott publicly backed the operation and ordered heightened state security measures, directing the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas National Guard to increase surveillance and patrols at what he described as key sites. His statement cited energy facilities, ports and the southern border as locations for stepped-up monitoring, with state agencies coordinating with federal partners amid warnings of potential retaliation.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also endorsed the military action, arguing it strengthened U.S. national security and aligned U.S. and Israeli interests. In his remarks, Cruz credited the armed forces and intelligence community and framed Iran’s leadership as a longstanding threat to Americans and U.S. allies.

U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio, a former service member, echoed the administration’s emphasis on confronting Iran’s leadership. He characterized the operation as the culmination of failed diplomacy and argued the moment created an opening for political change inside Iran, while calling for protection of U.S. troops and civilians.

Critics raise affordability, precedent and war-powers concerns

U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, condemned the strikes and argued the United States was being drawn into another Middle East conflict without congressional authorization. Castro called for an immediate vote on a War Powers Resolution and warned that recent U.S. history shows unpredictable consequences from military campaigns aimed at political transformation abroad.

The clash between Texas officials mirrors a broader national debate already forming in Washington over the scope of presidential authority to initiate military action. Several lawmakers from both parties signaled interest in limiting unilateral war-making powers, while others defended rapid action as necessary in a fast-moving security environment.

Texas security posture shifts as conflict evolves

• State authorities moved to increase monitoring at critical infrastructure, including energy and port assets.
• Federal officials offered limited immediate operational detail, citing the ongoing nature of events.
• Local military installations in the San Antonio region did not publicly outline changes beyond standard force-protection coordination.

As the conflict develops, statements from Texas leaders indicate two competing priorities: support for the operation’s stated security aims, and calls for congressional authorization and limits on escalation.

The coming days are expected to bring additional casualty reporting, diplomatic activity and further statements from federal, state and local officials as the operational and legal implications of the Feb. 28 strikes become clearer.