![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Adam-Johnson.jpg\")
<\/p>\nAdam Johnson is co-host of the Citations Needed<\/a> podcast and author of \u201cHow to Sell a Genocide: The Media\u2019s Complicity in the Destruction of Gaza,\u201d out April 21 and available for preorder now<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Key Democrats in<\/span> Congress are, once again, vaguely opposing a war instead of forcefully opposing it on moral or ideological grounds. Just as Democratic leadership slow-rolled<\/a> a war powers vote for two weeks after<\/a> President Donald Trump began amassing his armada<\/a> to attack Iran, and four days after the bombing was underway, Democrats are refusing to speak out clearly against the war, instead resigning themselves to process-based criticism and demands for \u201cmore information\u201d and \u201cplans.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n With strong indications<\/a> that Trump may soon send ground troops, we are long past the time for begging to see the \u201cplans.\u201d Democrats need to forcefully call for an end to this war now.<\/p>\n Still, this \u201cWe need to see Trump\u2019s plans for Iran\u201d talking point has taken hold, either through top-down messaging discipline or a very unfortunate series of coincidences. Democrats in the House and Senate have been echoing some version of this line for the past week:<\/p>\n Iran is exporting MORE oil than before the war, while Americans are paying more at the pump.<\/p>\n This is what happens when you start a war with no plan or strategy. Utter incompetence. https:\/\/t.co\/XYSesd5kSU<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Ruben Gallego (@RubenGallego) March 11, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n This is also what we heard in the classified briefing for Members of Congress last week.<\/p>\n I raised concerns about reports of the US funding militant groups and asked directly what the plan is for a democratic transition in Iran.<\/p>\n The response: \u201cThat is not part of the mission.\u201d https:\/\/t.co\/XVLwArwRY4<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (@RepYassAnsari) March 11, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n This messaging often comes after closed-door briefings<\/a> with Congress, followed by a consternating Democrat in front of a camera lamenting a lack of a \u201cplan\u201d or \u201cexit strategy.\u201d Let us examine this clip, for example, of Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., as he \u201cdemands answers\u201d and does a lot of posturing and Plan-Mongering but, strangely, never actually says the war is wrong and should end immediately.\u00a0<\/p>\n On Thursday, Democratic Reps. Yassamin Ansari, Sara Jacobs, and Jason Crow released a 1,100-word letter<\/a> to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanding accountability for war crimes committed in Iran that makes no demand to end the war causing the war crimes. <\/p>\n Similar to the Biden White House\u2019s strategy<\/a> of demanding Israel \u201callow in more aid\u201d in Gaza while continuing to arm<\/a> and fund the destruction of Gaza, there\u2019s a surplus of performative outrage and handwringing over the logical outcome of the war without opposing the war causing the war crimes in question. Countless other Democrats are repeating this script with varying degrees of normative content, but typically without much at all, instead keeping the conversation purely in the realm of process and strategy.<\/p>\n \u201c[President Trump has] not shown us any plans for what he wants to do for the day after,\u201d Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-N.V., told reporters<\/a> earlier in the week. \u201cWe have to have a plan,\u201d Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said to NOTUS<\/a> on Tuesday. \u201cI\u2019m still not convinced that the administration has a plan to execute the rest of the war and have an exit strategy.\u201d<\/p>\n Some of those pushing this line may argue that we can make process criticisms and demand an end to the war. While there\u2019s nothing inherently wrong with this approach \u2013\u2013 and some<\/a> have done it \u2013\u2013 for the vast majority, this is simply not the case. The only message that\u2019s pushed out to the public is the how and when of the war, not the fact of it.\u00a0<\/p>\n Dear @SecRubio<\/a>: You need to resign. You put many Americans in danger with no plan.<\/p>\n You knew Iran had missiles that could hit multiple soft targets. <\/p>\n Other countries are getting their citizens out. You\u2019re telling Americans they are on their own. Shameful dereliction of duty. https:\/\/t.co\/FewIrPx9tk<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 3, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n Every hour, the Trump administration changes its justification for war with Iran. And they have no plan for how to end it.<\/p>\n Trump started a new illegal war with no end in sight.<\/p>\n \u2014 Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 8, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n An extension of this messaging is a call for \u201chearings\u201d or \u201cinvestigations\u201d on the war. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is aggressively pushing this line, telling reporters earlier this week<\/a> that \u201cthe story from the administration changes by the hour.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhen it comes to sending our service members into harm\u2019s way, the American people need to understand why,\u201d he said. \u201cBut right now, they don\u2019t even have a \u2018why.\u2019 \u2026 That needs to change. We need testimony. We need accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n This war is not an abstract policy proposal up for debate at the Oxford Union Society that requires further deliberation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n It\u2019s unclear why anyone needs \u201ctestimony.\u201d The war is illegal, immoral, killing countless Iranians, and needs to end immediately. The implication in this constant Plan-Mongering is that some brilliant Aaron Sorkin speech from Hegseth or Marco Rubio in front of Congress would somehow change these underlying basic facts. This is a criminal war<\/a> being carried about by openly violent racists<\/a> and needs to stop at once. It is not an abstract policy proposal up for debate at the Oxford Union Society that requires further deliberation.<\/p>\n \u201cSenate Democrats vow to force Iran war votes if Republicans don\u2019t hold hearings,\u201d an exclusive<\/a> from Semafor informed us on Tuesday. \u201cSenate Democrats are threatening to force repeated votes on President Donald Trump\u2019s war with Iran unless Republicans agree to hold committee hearings about the ongoing war,\u201d the report continued.<\/p>\n Bombs don’t bring democracy. \u2014 Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) March 7, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n I was in a 2 hour briefing today on the Iran War. All the briefings are closed, because Trump can’t defend this war in public.<\/p>\n I obviously can’t disclose classified info, but you deserve to know how incoherent and incomplete these war plans are.<\/p>\n 1\/ Here’s what I can share:<\/p>\n \u2014 Chris Murphy ? (@ChrisMurphyCT) March 11, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., did make a clear statement in the Semafor article against the war, saying, \u201cNow is the time for Democrats to use all the leverage we have to try to stop this unnecessary war.\u201d But this is an outlier in these Plan-Mongering PR roll outs. Indeed, the entire premise that Democrats would force more war powers votes unless \u201cRepublicans hold hearings\u201d is nonsensical. If the war powers votes are meaningful leverage, why not use them to make a clear, consistent moral case to the public, rather than indulge the idea this is an unsettled debate to be hashed out in drawn-out hearings? What more is there to learn? The war is illegal, unjust, and immoral. What functional purpose would hearings serve, other than to mine for viral content of Dems Owning Trump Administration Officials?\u00a0<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It\u2019s true that every Democrat in the Senate \u2014 save for Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman<\/a> \u2014 supported a war powers resolution on March 4. And while this would have triggered congressional authority to vote for or against war with Iran, it is not, itself, a vote against war \u2014 it is an assertion of Congress\u2019s authority to decide the matter. This conditional element, combined with the fact that its failure in both the Senate and House was likely a fait accompli, permitted Democrats to be on the record as appearing to oppose the war without running afoul of the pro-war, pro-Israel lobby.<\/p>\n The Plan-Mongering strategy is being promoted by centrist, corporate, and billionaire-funded groups like Third Way.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n It\u2019s telling that the Plan-Mongering strategy is being promoted by centrist, corporate, and billionaire-funded<\/a> groups like Third Way, who released talking points<\/a> detailing how Democrats should talk about the war on the first day of the bombing, the substance of which is an almost carbon copy of how top Democrats have subsequently spoken about it.<\/p>\n \u201cPresident Trump is refusing to answer a number of grave and urgent questions,\u201d leads off the memo, which proceeds to lay out the familiar talking points: Is Iran truly an imminent threat? (The answer, one assumes, is TBD.) Why did Trump tell us in an address to the nation in June that Iran\u2019s nuclear assets had been \u201ccompletely and totally obliterated\u201d? Is this a \u201cWag the Dog\u201d war<\/em>? Is this a war for regime change?<\/em> (Again, the normative substance remains elusive.) Why has Congress been bypassed?<\/em><\/em> The memo ends with this muddled statement of support but skepticism about process: \u201cWe strongly support our troops and hope this mission succeeds. But these unanswered questions mean we don\u2019t know what success looks like, and that should deeply worry every American.\u201d<\/p>\n What\u2019s missing is a clearly articulated message against the war, or any demand to end it now. Instead, a \u201chope the mission succeeds,\u201d and a lot of hand-wringing, deflections, and concerns that Congress is being left out of the war. The influential liberal group National Security Action released similar, if marginally better, process-focused talking points<\/a> last week in their \u201cmessaging guide.\u201d While the guide conditionally opposes new funding, it still makes no demand to end the war immediately, instead suggesting Democrats should refuse to fund it until \u201cDonald Trump makes clear how and when we are getting out of this reckless war.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n What\u2019s missing is a clearly articulated message against the war, or any demand to end it now.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Rather than a clear objection to funding this illegal and immoral war in any form, these talking points continue to leave open the possibility Democrats could support it, if only there was an acceptable \u201cplan.\u201d Central to this incoherent messaging is the implication that there exists a \u201cplan\u201d Trump could proffer that would satisfy Democrats. And if that\u2019s the case, after the 900th demand by Democrats that he produce one, one is left wondering: Why don\u2019t the Democrats provide one, or at least a rough outline? What would a good \u201cplan\u201d for a surprise and unprovoked attack on Iran look like, exactly? What\u2019s to stop Schumer\u2019s office from offering one? What\u2019s left unsaid is that there\u2019s no plan in the universe that would justify this war of aggression that\u2019s already killed over 1,300 civilians, including 200 children<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Those pushing this argument would likely make a pragmatism defense: These types of process critiques play better with the public<\/em>, they might insist. But it\u2019s unclear on what basis this could be said, as the war is already historically unpopular<\/a>. Polls show the public overwhelmingly wants the war to end; they are not asking for more refined \u201cplans\u201d or \u201cexplanations\u201d or \u201chearings.\u201d<\/p>\n The real reason why this line is popular is almost certainly because it creates the appearance of unified party opposition while permitting those who soft-support the war to find something to criticize, namely the lack of a sufficiently good \u201cplan.\u201d <\/p>\n This focus on process criticism \u2014 which defined<\/a> Democratic leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries\u2019s superficial response to the war in the immediate lead-up and first days of the war \u2014 does not build any moral narratives, or undermine the logic of regime change<\/a>, which remains the bipartisan consensus, or run afoul of AIPAC<\/a> and other major pro-Israel Democratic donors. But it may help placate Democratic voters who are overwhelmingly opposed to the war to the tune of 89 percent<\/a>. When Democratic message-shapers are tasked with opposing a war without opposing the moral logic of the war<\/em>, confusing and often contradictory process criticism is all they have left.\u00a0<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n By signing up, I agree to receive emails from The Intercept and to the Privacy Policy<\/a> and Terms of Use<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n Democrats, as a minority party, could not unilaterally end the war if they wanted to, but this appeal to their powerlessness doesn\u2019t tell the whole story. When the House voted on a separate war powers resolution the day after the Senate\u2019s failed, four Democrats \u2014 Reps. Henry Cuellar<\/a>, Jared Golden, Greg Landsman<\/a>, and Juan Vargas \u2014 broke ranks and opposed it<\/a>. Had they voted the party line, it would have passed due to two Republicans joining the effort, and the war would have likely ended \u2014 at least until a subsequent authorization vote took place.<\/p>\n When is Jeffries, the supposedly anti-war House minority leader, going to discipline these four pro-war Democrats who ruined the party\u2019s nominal opposition to this war? So far, there have been no reports of any such measures, so we\u2019re left to understand that opposing the war is important, but it\u2019s not important-important. A potential upcoming vote on supplemental war funding<\/a> should be more clarifying, with the potential to differentiate between real opposition and senators Who Just Want to Look Outraged. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., indicated<\/a> he will oppose any more funding, while others, such as Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., have not ruled out more funding<\/a>, ostensibly to \u201csupport the troops.\u201d Jeffries, true to form as a party leader, refuses to say what he\u2019ll support<\/a>.<\/p>\n What generic Plan-Monger language does is permit seemingly genuine antiwar voices like Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to run the same basic script of AIPAC stalwarts like Booker and Schumer. The \u201cNo Plan\u201d sandbox provides cover for Democrats with a record of supporting Israel and being \u201ctough on Iran\u201d to appear anti-war without all the mess of saying anything substantive against the war.<\/p>\n A party that built its message around a strong, firm, and unequivocal case to end this war now would very suddenly draw attention to the undoubtedly dozens of congressional Democrats who would not echo this line. So what we get instead is limp process critiques, demanding pointless hearings, and bizarre attacks<\/a> that Trump is not doing regime change fast enough. Polls repeatedly<\/a> show the most common criticism of Democrats is not that they are too far left or too anti-war, but that they are too weak<\/a>, that they don\u2019t stand for anything<\/em>.<\/p>\n Centering criticism of a deeply unpopular war on those carrying it out for not filling out the right paperwork or producing a satisfactory slideshow \u2014 rather than making clear, normative objections to a war of aggression \u2014 feeds directly into this perception. But perhaps it\u2019s a perception Democratic leaders, and the pro-war, pro-Israel donors who fund their political careers, would prefer over the alternative.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\u00a0
Trump is risking American lives with no plan for what comes next in Iran\u2013risking another \u201cforever\u201d war where the American people pay the price. pic.twitter.com\/qjx2pQteht<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n We\u2019re independent of corporate interests \u2014 and powered by members. Join us. <\/h2>\n
\n Become a member
\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n Join Our Newsletter <\/span>
\n
\n Thank You For Joining! <\/span>
\n <\/h2>\n
\n Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. <\/span>
\n
\n Will you take the next step to support our independent journalism by becoming a member of The Intercept? <\/span>\n <\/p>\n
\n Become a member
\n <\/a><\/p>\n