Democrats have zero reasons to offer any support for this. That doesn’t mean that some won’t. We’re already seeing some reflexive clinging to “process” in which the main argument isn’t about why it’s daft and dangerous to do it but that he didn’t follow the right rules in doing it. That is a cowardly tactic to try to have it both ways. The reason to oppose this war is because it’s a felony stupid decision based upon prodding from the Israeli government, hawkish weirdos like Lindsey Graham and Trump’s megalomania.
Dan Pfeiffer did a nice job spelling this out:
Maybe Trump does some bombing, gets bored, and moves on to something else. But if we take him at his word, this will be a protracted conflict that could cost American lives, destabilize the region, and spike energy prices here at home.
Democrats must loudly and boldly oppose this war. They have a moral responsibility and a political obligation to do so. If Democrats cannot bring themselves to oppose an idiotic, unjustified regime change war in the Middle East, they do not deserve the power they seek.
The vast majority of Democrats are in the right place. Many have been loudly criticizing Trump and pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy of this war. But we need to be as unified as possible and speak with one voice.
That starts with a vote in the House next week on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution, which would require Trump to seek congressional approval to continue bombing Iran. Almost every Democrat and at least one Republican is expected to vote for it.
Two Democrats — Josh Gottheimer and Jared Moskowitz — have said they will vote no. Moskowitz even obnoxiously called the resolution the “Ayatollah Protection Act.” By blocking a Congressional vote on the war, Gottheimer and Moskowitz are playing cynical national security politics, and I hope they face vigorous primary challenges because of it.
The resolution could, but probably won’t, pass the House. Even if it passed the Senate, Trump would veto it, and there aren’t the votes to override. That said, many of the Democrats who will vote for the resolution are less firm on the underlying policy question of the war itself.
Axios reported earlier this week that a potential U.S. strike on Iran is exposing a quiet but consequential split inside the Senate Democratic caucus. The Democratic base strongly opposes war with Iran, but some of Chuck Schumer’s colleagues are more open to military action — provided Congress has a say.
That’s the “process” BS.
No. Not this time. Not with Trump, a criminal president with a 36% approval rating. Jesus.
There are two reasons Democrats behave this way. Many still carry a post-9/11 mentality, perpetually worried about being cast as weak or unpatriotic by Republicans and the right-wing media machine. That fear is an increasingly outdated notion in today’s political environment, but learned helplessness is hard to unlearn.
There are also Democrats who genuinely believe that regime change in Iran is a top national security priority and are willing to support military force, under the right circumstances, to achieve it. That’s not a view I share — I think it means failing to absorb every lesson of Iraq — but it’s a position someone can hold in good faith.
Even so: how can anyone seriously believe that Donald Trump, a corrupt, erratic wannabe dictator who couldn’t find Iran on a map, is the right person to manage that incredibly complex undertaking? Even if the military achieves regime change, do we really want Trump deciding what comes next in Iran? His first priority will probably be a Trump-branded golf course outside Tehran. The idea that Trump should be the one doing this is indefensible.
The American people are on our side. They don’t want this war. They elected Trump to stop wars, not start them. Democrats need to stop complicating something that is actually pretty simple — and loudly, boldly oppose a dumb and dangerous man launching a dumb and dangerous war for no good reason.
The fact is that the United States has proved over many decades now that this “regime change” concept, usually taken with the fatuous notion that we are killing the people for their own good, backfires every time. This self-serving idea that we’ll be greeted a liberators never proves true and the death and chaos we inflict in the process is never worth it.
Wars of choice are bad, period. We should have learned this by now.
Moreover, Rachel Maddow’s point from yesterday — that you have to look at who will really benefit — is especially true with this corrupt bunch of gangsters leading the charge. There is simply no doubt that Trump was persuaded by the prospect of somehow getting our hands on all that oil. It’s not like he ever made a secret of it, since he’s said “we should have kept the oil!” hundreds of times over the years.
No, this is one is very easy (as was Iraq) — just say no. Democrats have a head start this time, the public is already against it. Even Republicans are tepid much less the Democrats and Independents. They’ve never had a better case, from “wag the dog” to “no war for oil” to “he promised no more wars.” They simply must stick together and oppose this war unequivocally.