Forgot Your Password?

New to The Nation? Subscribe

Print subscriber? Activate your online access

.nation-small__b{fill:#fff;}

Trump’s War in Iran Opens a Foreign Policy Debate Democrats Can No Longer Avoid

The war is forcing Democrats to confront a question they have long deferred: whether the party can offer a coherent anti-war alternative to Washington’s foreign policy consensus.

Donald Trump returned to the White House promising to end wars and steer the United States away from costly foreign entanglements. One year into his second term, however, the United States has entered an illegal, costly, and risky war in Iran, with no clear justification or strategy. 

Over the past year, Trump has escalated tensions across the world, particularly Western Hemisphere—capturing Venezuela’s president and threatening governments from Greenland to Cuba—while delivering few diplomatic results, including little progress on his pledge to end the war in Ukraine.

In the aftermath of Trump’s decisive victory in November 2024, analysis and polling suggested that his willingness to emphasize a pro-peace message—and, the contrast he managed to draw with his opponent’s embrace of Washington’s foreign policy orthodoxy—played a meaningful role in the election’s outcome.  Now, as his governing record betrays that message, Democrats are confronting a familiar but unresolved question: whether they can articulate a coherent alternative of their own. As this year’s midterms and the 2028 presidential elections near, that question seems likely to fuel a growing debate within the party over how Democrats should counter this administration’s war and how far to go in redefining their own foreign policy.

“Trump very, very quickly broke his promise to be a pro-peace president; he showed once again he is anything but,” Matt Duss, the executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, told The Nation. “There is really an opening here for Democrats to lean into a more pro-peace message.”

Trump’s decision to launch a war with Iran has made the political stakes of that argument more immediate. Some progressive Democrats say the conflict illustrates the costs of Washington’s long-standing foreign policy approach. “As someone who survived war, I know bombs don’t build or create stability—they unleash chaos,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) told The Nation in a statement. “The Democratic Party must be the anti-war party. It’s time for us to set a clear vision of diplomacy over destruction, people over defense contracts. For decades, we’ve poured billions into endless wars with no clear mission. The US war on Iran has already cost taxpayers over $2 billion. While Washington funds another conflict, Republicans are cutting healthcare and food assistance. It’s time to stop investing in forever wars and start investing in our own people.”

In the broader party, however, signs of a serious rethinking are so far inconsistent, at best. Since his first term in office, the opposition party’s disapproval of Trump has waffled between pinpointing his militarism and blaming him for abdicating American leadership in the world because he won’t stand up to perceived adversaries.

All Democratic Senators but one voted in favor of an unsuccessful War Powers Resolution aimed at constraining Trump’s ability to wage war, and many members have spoken out against the president’s decision to go to war. On the House side, four Democrats voted with almost the entire GOP to defeat a similar effort.

But it took party leadership days after the administration had surged military assets into the Middle East to rally behind the resolution, at which point the war had already been launched. In the lead-up to the war, even when creating distance from the president over Iran, the party’s critique was uneven. Some Democrats have openly supported military action or opposed legislative constraints on executive authority, while others have focused primarily on what they see as Trump’s messy management of the crisis. The result has been a familiar pattern: a technocratic critique of execution rather than a moral, legal, or strategic objection to war itself—one that reflects the party’s broader uncertainty over how far its foreign policy rethinking should extend.

“It’s striking how many Democrats seem to be stuck making basically procedural objections to this war,” said Marcus Stanley, director of studies at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “Instead of........

© The Nation