1. United States
2. Ohio
3. Letter

On August 13, 2026, you went on national television to defend the military conflict in Iran, explicitly redefining wartime priorities. Your exact words: "That's goal number one—keep oil and gas cheap for Americans all over our country. And then obviously goal number two is ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon." In that same interview, you claimed fuel prices were "way down from the highs" of the war's early days. That is false. National gas prices climbed right back over $4 a gallon that same week as fighting choked off tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.  Six months ago, you reportedly warned the White House against starting this conflict. Today, you are publicly defending it by pretending that launching a war in the world's primary energy corridor was actually a plan to keep fuel cheap. Even Donald Trump immediately undercut your story on Truth Social, saying that preventing a nuclear weapon is—and always has been—the administration's real number-one goal. That leaves only two conclusions: - OPTION 1: You genuinely do not understand basic cause and effect, believing you can sustain an armed conflict across a critical oil corridor and convince working families that the resulting price spikes are a consumer relief effort. - OPTION 2: You understand the reality completely, but having abandoned your non-interventionist posture to support the war, you are inventing an economic justification to avoid public backlash—one so disconnected from price data that your claim failed the same week you made it. American service members are not a price-stabilization mechanism for fuel markets. I ask you to take three immediate, accountable steps: 1. CLARIFY THE WARTIME MANDATE: Formally state whether the primary objective of military operations in Iran is energy market stabilization or nuclear non-proliferation. 2. REPORT ON ECONOMIC COSTS: Provide Congress with an itemized accounting of how military operations in the Strait of Hormuz have impacted domestic gas prices and consumer costs. 3. ADDRESS THE READINESS RISK: Explain how committing military resources to stabilize commercial shipping lanes aligns with statutory force posture and service member safety. Do you truly believe sustaining a regional war lowers costs at the pump, or are you hoping voters won't notice your shifting justifications? We deserve an answer.