Some Democrats are fighting to stop war with Iran, but party leaders are silently acquiescing or, worse, supporting an attack.
June 19 2025 (TheIntercept.com)
AS PRESIDENT DONALD Trump barrels toward a direct war with Iran, the most powerful Democrats in Congress are issuing statements that are at best tepid and confusing. At worst, they are cheering escalation.
Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution and other legislation to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party’s most powerful politicians refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump.
Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be “tough” on Iran and not make any “side deals” without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approval.
“The United States’ commitment to Israel’s security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran’s response,” he said in a follow-up statement released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. “The Iranian regime’s stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.”
Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks — “a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.” The “meaningful leverage” in question, however, is bombing Iran — something Schumer tacitly supports.
MOST READ
Mahmoud Khalil Won His Freedom Despite the Best Efforts of ICE’s Intelligence Unit
Self-Proclaimed “Peacemaker” Drags U.S. Into Another War
U.S. Intel Says Iran Isn’t a Nuclear Threat. Israel Wants the U.S. to Bomb It Anyway.
Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel’s attack with a toothless statement that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. “Our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad,” he said. “It is clear that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to the entire free world. There is no circumstance where Iran can be permitted to become a nuclear power.”
Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency. “As soon as is practical, it is imperative to find a rigorous diplomatic path forward and avoid any situation where U.S. troops are put in harm’s way,” he said. As with Schumer, “diplomacy” is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand — and certainly not a requirement.
Related
U.S. Intel Says Iran Isn’t a Nuclear Threat. Israel Wants the U.S. to Bomb It Anyway.
A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump’s pending bombing campaign, namely the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal and CNN, which suggest Iran hadn’t decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did.
If all of the statements look similar, it’s because, according to DropSite and the American Prospect, many members of Congress are simply copy and pasting approved language from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby group. These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they “stand with Israel” and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words.
Among the influential Democrats pledging their unflinching support for Israel was Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many others, Meeks hauled out a talking point about how “Israel has a right to defend itself” — meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It’s a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an “imminent threat” in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a “right to defend itself” in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so.
The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don’t end there. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, influential members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, both issued mealy-mouthed statements trying to split the baby between “diplomacy” rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel’s bombing of Iran.
Anti-Anti-War
These non-positions — or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal war — are notable precisely because there are some lawmakers who are at least trying to do something to stop a direct, all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran. According to the latest count by Prem Thakker, 37 members of Congress have thrown their weight behind some kind of effort to stop war. These fall into two camps. The first is a resolution in both the House and Senate that invokes the 1973 War Powers Act, which says that only Congress can declare war, a principle that has been routinely violated by U.S. presidents.
