\n<\/p>\n
As President Donald<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution<\/a> and other legislation<\/a> to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party\u2019s most powerful politicians\u00a0refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war.<\/p>\n 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<\/a> about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump.<\/p>\n 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 \u201ctough\u201d on Iran and not make any \u201cside deals\u201d without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu\u2019s approval.<\/p>\n \u201cThe United States\u2019 commitment to Israel\u2019s security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran\u2019s response,\u201d he said in a follow-up statement<\/a> released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. \u201cThe Iranian regime\u2019s stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.\u201d<\/p>\n Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks \u2014 \u201ca strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.\u201d The \u201cmeaningful leverage\u201d in question, however, is bombing Iran \u2014 something Schumer tacitly supports<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel\u2019s attack with a toothless statement<\/a> that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. \u201cOur commitment to Israel\u2019s security is ironclad,\u201d he said. \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency.\u00a0\u201cAs 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\u2019s way,\u201d he said. As with Schumer, \u201cdiplomacy\u201d is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand \u2014 and certainly not a requirement.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump\u2019s pending bombing campaign, namely\u00a0the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments <\/a>and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal<\/a> and CNN<\/a>, which suggest Iran hadn\u2019t decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did.<\/p>\n If all of the statements look similar, it\u2019s because, according<\/a> to DropSite and the American Prospect<\/a>, 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.\u00a0These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they \u201cstand with Israel\u201d and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words.\u00a0<\/p>\n 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 \u201cIsrael has a right to defend itself\u201d \u2014 meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It\u2019s a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an \u201cimminent threat\u201d in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a \u201cright to defend itself\u201d in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so<\/a>.<\/p>\n The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don\u2019t 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 \u201cdiplomacy\u201d rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel\u2019s bombing of Iran.<\/p>\n These non-positions \u2014 or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal<\/a> war \u2014 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\nAnti-Anti-War<\/strong><\/h2>\n