A growing number of House Republicans are airing public concerns about President Donald Trump‘s possible deployment of U.S. ground troops in Iran as the Pentagon sends thousands of American paratroopers and other servicemembers to the Middle East.

Nearly every GOP lawmaker has voted to green-light Trump’s military campaign. But a growing number, including some veterans, are voicing new reservations as evidence mounts that Trump could escalate the war to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, secure Iran’s nuclear stockpile or accomplish other strategic goals.

“I’m really, really hopeful this doesn’t turn into a boots-on-the-ground situation,” Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Thursday. “My biggest concern this whole time is that this would turn into another long Middle Eastern war.”

“Though I don’t want to try and take away any of the president’s ability to carry out this operation, I know a lot of our supporters and a lot of members of Congress are very concerned” about that possibility, Crane added.

The comments from a MAGA-aligned former Navy SEAL who served five wartime deployments underscore the deepening wariness among Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Some are warning in public and private that the midterm backlash to any ground invasion of Iran would be swift and severe.

“We lose 60 to 70 seats,” said one House Republican granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter.

Senior House Democrats are making plans to force another vote on a resolution that would restrict U.S. military action in Iran. But they’ve delayed it until the House returns from recess in mid-April given absences in their ranks and the need to secure more GOP support after a similar measure narrowly failed earlier this month.

House Democratic leaders have been working to flip a handful of Democrats who opposed the last war powers resolution and now believe they only need one more Republican to flip to yes at this point, according to three people granted anonymity to speak freely about private conversations.

“No U.S. troops on the ground,” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said in an interview, suggesting she could be the third Republican to break with Trump and help pass the Democratic-led war powers measure next month.

“If we’re in this phase where there are troops on the ground, then we’re in a different phase of the conflict, which requires Congress’s input,” Mace said.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), another retired Navy SEAL who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and represents a competitive district, said in an interview he’s been “very clear” that he does not support uniformed American troops being put on the ground in Iran.

Van Orden said he believes Trump has “learned” from the mistakes of previous presidents who’ve gotten the country stuck in endless wars abroad.

House GOP leaders are mindful of the promises many of their frontline incumbents who won tight races made to their constituents: Republicans would not pursue endless military campaigns and regime change abroad.

Asked last week about the Pentagon sending several thousand U.S. Marines into the Middle East, Speaker Mike Johnson said, “I haven’t seen the details of it.”

Following more reports of troop deployments this week, Johnson said the U.S. is “wrapping up” the current military operation against Iran and he believed U.S. boots on the ground “is not the intention” that Trump is pursuing.

“It should not be necessary” for U.S. forces to invade Iran, he added in a Fox News interview Thursday. “I think we can get this resolved without it.”

But concerns are rising among the GOP rank-and-file, especially after a classified briefing Wednesday didn’t provide many answers to Armed Service Committee members about the administration’s plans for the divisions they are sending to the region around Iran.

Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.), one of Democrats’ biggest targets in November, also cautioned against a protracted war when asked this week about the U.S. troops heading to the Middle East.

“I think we certainly do not want to get embroiled in another Forever War,” Mackenzie said in an interview.

“So I hope this is maybe a precautionary measure or posturing to get a better deal out of the Iranians,” he added. “But we do need to figure out what the path is forward, and we as members of Congress are looking forward to getting an update from the administration.”

Rep. Gabe Evans of Colorado, another Republican who Democrats are targeting heavily, suggested the troop deployments were “just part of the negotiations … so this just goes back to the art of the deal.

“I don’t think anybody wants to see boots on the ground,” Evans added. “But if you don’t, if you, if you paint a hard line and say, ‘We’re absolutely not going to do this,’ you’ve taken that off the table as a negotiating point.”

Trump weighed in directly to House Republicans Wednesday on his decision to conduct military strikes against Iran without getting congressional approval first.

“I won’t use the word ‘war,’ because they say if you use the word ‘war,’ that’s maybe not a good thing to do,” the president said at the annual NRCC fundraising dinner. “They don’t like the word ‘war,’ because you’re supposed to get approval. So I’ll use the word ‘military operation,’ which is really what it is. It’s called a military decimation.”

Trump also acknowledged higher energy and oil prices from the war, but he maintained it was more important to address the “cancer” of Iran despite the risks. House Republicans are also grappling with the fallout of high gas prices and a possible $200 billion price tag of the war and other military funding that Congress will have to debate soon.

Republicans note that reaction to the war so far is largely along party lines, but there is limited patience for higher gas prices among American voters.

House Democratic leaders and much of their caucus expressed support for the Senate-passed bill to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security as they emerged from a closed-door meeting Friday.

“The only thing standing between ending this chaos or not are House Republicans,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said. “There’s a bipartisan bill that emerged from the Senate with uniform support, and it should be brought to the floor immediately so we can pay TSA agents, so we can end the chaos at airports across the country and stop inconveniencing millions of Americans.”

Democrats say they want to end the six-week DHS shutdown Friday, when TSA agents were slated to be paid, rather than drag things through the weekend and potentially into a scheduled two-week recess. Multiple Democrats said they are encouraged the Senate’s legislation resembles a proposal led by the top Democratic appropriator, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, to fund DHS without including immigration enforcement agencies.

As of Friday morning, 207 House Democrats had signed on to an effort to force a floor vote on that bill.

“I believe, and my colleagues believe, that we need to get the government funded,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said. “What the Senate has done is essentially the bill that we proposed.”

Several Democrats left the door open to supporting procedural measures allowing the bill to pass in the event Republican leaders cannot unite their own members to pass it. Many GOP lawmakers expressed anger with the Senate product Friday, throwing its future in doubt.

“We are willing to do whatever is necessary to pay TSA agents to end the chaos and to stop inconveniencing millions of Americans,” Jeffries said.

Speaker Mike Johnson declined to say Friday whether he will keep the House in over the weekend to pass the Department of Homeland Security funding agreement the Senate approved hours earlier.

“Stay tuned,” the Louisiana Republican told reporters when asked if he was committed to passing the Senate bill, which would fund all of DHS except for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

Johnson said he would talk through options and work the “will of the conference.” But every path before him is fraught.

Johnson, who said he has not decided on how to advance the bill, has several options.

He could move it through a party-line “rule” vote that would require broad GOP support — an unsure bet at this stage as GOP leaders expect a backlash from ultra-conservatives. His alternative would be to expedite passage through a so-called suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority vote — a move that could enrage GOP hard-liners.

Johnson is also hamstrung by the fact that procedural rules that House members approved at the start of the 119th Congress does not allow the House to vote on suspension bills on Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

House Rules Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and Rep. Richard Hudson, chair of the House GOP’s campaign fundraising arm, met with the speaker Friday and other senior Republicans to plot a path forward.

Conservative House Republicans are livid that the Senate passed the funding deal absent ICE funding and then left town, also without passing the elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act. GOP hard-liners are pushing for Johnson to attach SAVE and send it back to the Senate.

“We want to solve these problems as quickly as possible, but we also understand this dangerous gambit about not funding the border, securing the border and the ability to deport criminal illegal aliens is a serious problem,” Johnson said.

Centrist House Republicans are itching for the chamber to pass the deal Friday.

“I hope they do,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said.