Democrats' Hidden Divide on Trump's War on Iran - New York Magazine

Since Donald Trump decided to wage war on Iran, there has understandably been a lot of focus on the intellectual and emotional stress Trump is placing on the MAGA movement. This war, after all, hardly looks like what an America First president would choose to make his overriding priority. It remains to be seen if MAGA social-media influencers who take America First seriously or dislike Trump’s Israeli allies have any real sway over rank-and-file Republicans or GOP elected officials, who typically back whatever their president chooses to do and seem to buy his dubious claims that the war is one of self-defense.

At the moment, Democrats appear largely united in opposing Trump’s war as an illegal usurpation of congressional war-making authority. Yes, there are a very few Democrats in Congress (notably Congressman Greg Landsman of Ohio and Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania) who are backing the war unconditionally. But like the Republicans willing to say “no” to Trump on this war, they are isolated and largely marginal to the debate.

There is, however, a real division emerging among Democrats about the righteousness of the war itself, legality aside, and about the administration’s stated war aims of eliminating Iran’s nuclear-weapons program for good and toppling its theocratic regime.

These differences may not matter when it comes to the immediate partisan collision in Congress over war-powers resolutions. The votes this week are meant to restrain Trump’s military operations in Iran after he launched this war without bothering to consult the legislative branch or inform the public in advance of the rationale for and goals of this adventure. These measures are mostly symbolic; they will likely fail in Congress, and if not, they will be vetoed by the president.

Once that battle has been fought and lost, and assuming the war drags on, Democrats will need to more clearly address the basic question of how they feel about the transformed Middle East that Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are trying to create at such great risk to regional and global stability. As the New York Times observes, there are some “subtle divisions” that are already evident:

“We need to take a very firm, ‘hell no’ approach and not equivocate on it or suggest that some drawn out process would in any way justify what he’s trying to do,” said Representative Eric Swalwell, who is running for governor of California in a crowded primary. “In no world do I see this being acceptable for our values,” he said.

Mr. Swalwell reacted — like many in his party — to the strikes on Iran with furious opposition, accusing Mr. Trump of risking the lives of American service members without presenting evidence that America’s security was at risk.

But others took a more tempered approach, showing continued support for the decades-old bipartisan consensus that Iran poses a threat to American national security and should not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.

In particular, the Times notes, three prominent Democrats who are probable 2028 presidential candidates have already typified the “No, but” approach to Trump’s war. There’s Governor Gavin Newsom, considered the 2028 front-runner by many:

There’s Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, considered the most electable 2028 prospect by many:

Like Newsom, Shapiro takes a hard line on Iran’s nuclear program and appears to support regime change. And then there’s Senator Mark Kelly, the Times notes:

“We can’t allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon,” Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday. But, he added, “this administration, my sense is that they did not go into this with any kind of strategic plan. It was an operation with no discussion about what comes next.”

You could characterize all three of these objections to Trump’s attack on Iran as questioning the time, place, and manner of the military action rather than its rationale and goals. This difference of opinion from “hell no!” Democrats may not seem so “subtle” if the Iranian regime begins to crumble or the war solidifies U.S.-Israeli hegemony over the Middle East.

To some extent, the potential rift between Democrats whose objection to the war is mostly legalistic and those who reject it categorically may reflect preexisting divisions over the U.S. alliance with Israel, which is, after all, the backbone of the attack on Iran. This could emerge as a more fundamental issue in Democratic primaries in 2028, if not earlier. Democrats who have described Israel’s war on Gaza as “genocidal” are not likely to smile upon a further expansion of Israel’s power in its regional neighborhood or the continued aggrandizement of Bibi Netanyahu as the most successful warlord of the 21st century. And at some point, Democrats will have to more carefully define their own approach to war and peace in the Middle East if and when Trump is finally gone. We may be seeing a new phase in a debate that will drag on even longer than this war.

More on Politics

- How War in Iran Could Turn Into an Oil Shock Nightmare - Crockett & Talarico Wage New Battle in Fight to Flip Texas - Trump Is Workshopping Iran War Plan in Weird Calls to Press

See All