Democrats Thrown Into Disarray as US Offensive on Iran Creates Cracks
Lawmakers from Bernie Sanders to Mark Kelly are offering mixed feelings on Donald Trump's military action and the killing of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, revealing significant fractures within the Democratic Party. As Republicans celebrated the death with praise for Trump's decisive moves, Democrats grappled with internal divisions and the challenge of presenting a united front.
Condemnation and Qualified Support
Most Democrats were quick to condemn the US president for sidelining Congress to launch what they called an illegal and unconstitutional war. They demanded a swift vote on a war powers resolution aimed at restraining his military onslaught. However, some in the party felt obliged to acknowledge Khamenei's death as a positive development and demonstrate support for US troops. A small band of centrist Democrats have even threatened to scupper a war powers resolution if it comes to the floor.
John Fetterman, a Democratic senator for Pennsylvania and staunch supporter of Israel, tweeted, "President Trump has been willing to do what's right and necessary to produce real peace in the region." He declared himself a "hard no" on a war powers vote, posting an image of the ayatollah with the provocative statement: "Let's see who grieves for that garbage."
Leadership Outcry and Strategic Concerns
Democratic leaders were outspoken during the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, decrying Trump's unwillingness to engage with Congress and lack of long-term strategy for Iran. They noted that it was Trump, during his first term, who shredded Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran. Once the US and Israeli military struck on Saturday, the sharpest voices accused the president of riding roughshod over the constitution.
Senator Bernie Sanders denounced the assault as "an illegal, premeditated and unconstitutional war," while Senator Chris Van Hollen warned it amounted to a "regime-change war" that would leave the US less secure. Senator Tim Kaine, long a thorn in the side of presidents of both parties on war powers, called the strikes "a colossal mistake" and demanded a swift vote requiring Trump to seek authorisation.
Mixed Reactions and Political Traps
Others, however, were more qualified in their responses. Tom Suozzi, a New York Democrat who co-chairs the Problem Solvers caucus, wrote on social media: "I agree with the President's objectives that Iran can never be allowed to obtain nuclear capabilities." Henry Cuellar of Texas said the threat posed by Iran was "real and longstanding."
Not all Democrats are lining up behind a war powers rebuke. In the House of Representatives, Josh Gottheimer applauded the administration's "decisive action" to defend American interests and allies. Greg Landsman argued that the US "is destroying Iran's missiles and bombs to stop them from taking more lives," and said he would oppose a resolution that he fears would amount to abandoning Israel.
Congressman Jared Moskowitz rehearsed Tehran's long record of sponsoring violence across the region and insisted the focus must now be on shaping what comes next rather than relitigating what has already happened. There may be enough defections to block a war powers resolution, although a few libertarian Republicans could join those in favor.
Deeper Unease and Electoral Implications
The split also exposes a deeper unease within Democratic ranks over how robustly to confront Iran and how far to go in backing Israeli military action. There are also political traps as Republicans accuse them of lacking patriotism and ignoring the Iranian diaspora who have taken to the streets to celebrate Khamenei's downfall.
The discomfort is embodied by Senator Mark Kelly, a former combat pilot and potential 2028 presidential contender. Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, Kelly was asked if he agrees with Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican senator, that the world is now safer because the supreme leader of Iran is dead.
Kelly replied: "Well, I agree with that part. I mean, it's a good thing that the supreme leader is gone and some of the folks around him." But he also delivered a withering assessment of the White House's preparation. "Hope is not a strategy," Kelly warned, questioning whether the administration had any serious plan for the aftermath. Air power can destroy targets, he added, but fully eliminating capabilities without boots on the ground is "incredibly challenging."
Symbolic Debates and Historical Context
The congressional debate over war powers would mostly be symbolic. Even if a resolution were to pass the narrowly split Congress, Trump likely would veto it and Congress would not have the two-thirds majority needed to overturn that rejection. Congress has often failed to block other US military actions, including in a Senate vote on Venezuela, but the roll calls stand as a public record.
Joel Rubin, a former assistant deputy secretary of state, said: "You have two streams on this. You have a chunk that is virulently opposed to any military action whatsoever related to Iran. That's a minority, but it's a significant minority and it's an important group of members and they're loud. They frame it as an illegal activity, even though it's not, but they call it that and then they slip into a variety of other arguments against military action."
"The second group are basically we don't like the process, we needed to be briefed, we needed more clarity about how long it's going to be, what's the on-the-ground operation – process questions and should-have-come-to-Congress kind of stuff, but not necessarily opposed to what's happening."
Looking Ahead to Elections
Democrats were divided over an Iraq vote in 2002, a Yemen war powers vote in 2019 and the first Trump administration's strike on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Some are already casting their minds forward to the midterm elections. Rubin, a former Democratic congressional candidate, added: "It's part of the overall positioning in the primaries, without a doubt. It's going be hard for Democratic candidates to be nuanced on this. They will try but it'll depend a lot on their district."
In Texas, the two top contenders in the Democratic Senate primary left little daylight between them. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett posted on social media: "CONGRESS, not the PRESIDENT, but CONGRESS has the EXCLUSIVE authority to declare war!" State representative James Talarico posted on social media: "No more forever wars."
In Maine, Graham Platner, a marine veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a progressive running in Senate primary, released a video to condemn Trump: "He is doing this because he is flailing politically. He ran on ending foreign intervention like this. But because he sees his political future at risk, he is willing to send young American men and women into harm's way."
His primary rival, Maine governor Janet Mills, is typically seen as a more moderate figure but appeared keen that Platner would not outflank her, accusing Trump of "recklessly pushing the United States into a dangerous conflict in the Middle East." She added: "This is yet another abuse of power from a president who constantly disregards the rule of law."
