What’s Driving the Partisan Divide on Iran?

Responsibility vs. acquiescence

This week, the Senate and House, largely along party lines, rejected war powers resolutions that would have required the president to receive authorization from Congress to continue the war with Iran. Though the debate may have appeared overtly partisan, the vote was not simply political gamesmanship. Those who supported the resolutions were aiming to ensure we have a clear strategy worthy of our military sacrifice.

Congressional authorization for the use of military force is mandated by the Constitution, and President Donald Trump failed to seek and receive it because he doesn’t have a clear strategy or objectives in Iran. In the past week, the White House has attempted to provide multiple justifications for the war. First, Trump said the war was intended to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Though there’s no denying the danger the Iranian regime poses to its own people, Israel’s security, and American interests in the region, there was no imminent threat posed by Iran to the United States.

An Air Force B-52H Stratofortress bomber takes off in support of Operation Epic Fury, March 2. (Department of Defense)

Another justification provided by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) was that preemptive strikes were necessary to defend against Iranian retaliatory strikes following an Israeli attack on Iran. This may sound convoluted, but the bottom line is that the White House and Republicans tried to blame Israel for its decision to go to war with Iran. This is dangerous because it diverts responsibility for the most important decision facing this White House to another country and risks jeopardizing the future of the U.S.-Israel ties.

The president later attempted to reverse this argument, claiming that he “forced Israel’s hand,” but the damage was already done in terms of the dangerous perception, which fuels antisemitism, that America’s decision to go to war with Iran was compelled by Israel. This argument was apparently also echoed in a White House letter to Congress that said the war was initiated “in collective self-defense of our regional allies, including Israel.”

The key questions before this White House — which remain unanswered — are whether military conflict with Iran is in America’s interest, what are the objectives, and is there a plan to turn short-term tactical gains into long-term strategic success in Iran. These are especially important questions not just for Congress and the American people, but also for our military, for the families of the six American service members who have been killed in combat, and the other families who may soon bury their loved ones in a flag-draped coffin.

The U.S. military has done an outstanding job following the orders of their chain of command, and they’ve achieved military success alongside Israel decapitating the Iranian regime and military. This was especially important given Iran’s role as the largest global state sponsor of terror and its incredibly dangerous ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Ayatollah Khamenei was responsible for building these programs and the deaths of Americans, Israelis, Iranians, Jews, and many others over the past four decades. The Iranian regime is despotic and responsible for killing tens of thousands of protesters in January, which is why the Iranian people and Iranians around the world have been rooting for its demise.

The problem is that Khamenei’s death doesn’t guarantee regime change, allow the Iranian people to “take back their country,” or lay the groundwork for peace and democracy. To the contrary, a future Iranian regime may be even more intransigent, dangerous, and entrenched. Khamenei’s son Mojtaba is positioned to become Iran’s next Supreme Leader, making it even less likely the Iranian people will be able to rise up. Mojtaba is known to have close ties within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has decentralized power and empowered lower-level officers to strike neighboring countries, expanding this conflict.

This is the fourth time in two years that Iran has launched missiles at Israel, and the United States has stood with Israel each time — in the Biden and Trump administrations — to ensure its security and self-defense. Most recently, in June, the United States initiated limited strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, when Trump falsely claimed to have “completely and totally obliterated” its nuclear program. Iran should never be able to acquire a nuclear weapon, which is why the president was holding nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva as recently as last week.

Iran poses a threat to American interests, but the president hasn’t explained how this war of choice will effectively address those threats. Democrats overwhelmingly supported the war powers resolutions because it is painfully clear that the White House lacks a clear strategy on Iran. We can stand with our allies, including Israel, without launching a war with no clear objectives or end. Certainly, blaming Israel for America’s decision to go to war is no way to support our strongest partner and ally in the Middle East.

Now that we are at war, Democrats supported the only legislative vehicle they have to demand a strategy for success in Iran. This was the responsible vote. Republicans, on the other hand, acquiesced again to Trump and opposed the resolutions for purely political reasons.

Halie S. Soifer is CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA), which she has led since 2018. For nearly two decades, Halie served as a national security adviser for four members of Congress and as a senior policy adviser in the Obama administration.

---