While most Democrats have opposed his decision, their responses reveal differences over Middle East policy and national security that loom over the party’s future.
“We can’t allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon,” said Senator Mark Kelly, who had a more tempered opinion on President Trump’s Iran attack.Credit…
Democrats have overwhelmingly opposed President Trump’s decision to strike Iran without seeking congressional approval. But in significant if subtle ways, the attacks have magnified fissures in the party over the country’s national security interests and America’s use of military force in the Middle East.
The questions many Democrats are raising over whether Mr. Trump was justified in launching the attacks deepened on Sunday after the first American casualties were announced by the Pentagon.
Yet even as they prepared to return to Washington to debate a military attack that could spur a broader conflict, tensions were emerging within the party over how stridently to oppose Mr. Trump’s use of force to achieve regime change and limit Iran’s ability to obtain nuclear arms.
And a small handful of Democrats, including some of the party’s strongest supporters of Israel, which conducted strikes alongside the U.S., have backed the administration’s operation.
The disagreements reveal a Democratic Party still searching for direction after its devastating defeat in the 2024 election. On issues from taxes to immigration to Israel, the party is remaking its views in real time, as Democratic lawmakers react to Mr. Trump’s aggressive use of executive power.
“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.
They criticized the administration for launching strikes without consulting Congress, while also casting the Iranian regime as a uniquely dangerous actor responsible for the deaths of Americans and its own citizens.
