For Democratic contenders, Iran war presents opportunity and risk

The contenders’ big problem is they can’t know which path of attack will be more effective because they don’t know what is going to happen. If, after initial military success which included killing supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iran effort fails to establish a new government and the country descends into chaos and remains a danger to the region — if that happens, the Democratic contenders will be proved right. Trump and his Republican supporters will suffer grave political damage — shades of George W. Bush and the Iraq War — and Democrats will benefit.

On the other hand, if, after initial military success, the Iran effort produces a stable government that seeks to live in peace with its neighbors — if that happens, the Democrats will be proved wrong. Their political opponents will portray them as TDS-afflicted losers who didn’t have the guts to stand up to tyranny.

Each candidate’s statement gives some clues to how they approach the problem. Start with Harris. The former vice president was in Detroit this weekend for what local media called a “campaign-style” visit when word of the Iran attack came. Harris immediately declared her outrage at the president’s decision.

“Donald Trump has dragged us into a war the American people do not want,” Harris told reporters on her way into a vegan restaurant on Saturday. “He has put American troops in harm’s way. I unequivocally oppose this war of choice, and everyone should. And the bottom line, when it comes down to it, is that if we want to stop Donald Trump, with this random decision that he has arrived at, then Congress must act, and Congress must act immediately. The American people do not want our sons and daughters to go into this unauthorized war of choice, and I unequivocally oppose it.” 

Gavin Newsom, true to form, chose to attack, attack, attack. “He lied to you,” Newsom said of Trump at a book event in San Francisco. “Reckless is the only way to describe this. He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here. He didn’t describe the existential threat of the moment, the immediacy of the crisis at hand. There wasn’t one. He manufactured it. And now we’re manufacturing a crisis of outcomes unknown and the uncertainty it makes at this moment. And that’s Donald Trump, the chaos president, this wrecking ball president, across the board. Destruction is not strength.” Newsom concluded with, “We just pray pray for our troops, we pray for our allies, and we pray that Donald Trump is temporary and his time is up in just three years.”

Buttigieg, third in the RealClearPolitics average at the moment, chose to accuse Trump of both acting lawlessly and ignoring domestic issues while focusing on a needless foreign war. “The president has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote. “It does nothing to help with the urgent problems here at home that Americans face every day. This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.” 

For her part, Ocasio-Cortez chose an all-of-the-above Trump criticism. “The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions,” she wrote. “This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic.” Ocasio-Cortez accused Trump of cutting off negotiations that “could have staved off war,” and of making “a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach.” She demanded that Trump “stop lying to the American people.” And she took the institutional route, too: “In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The president does not. I will do my part to uphold our Constitution by voting YES on my representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution. Every member of Congress must join us in rejecting this aimless war.”

Fifth in the polls at the moment, Gov. Shapiro was the only Democrat to include criticism of Iran’s leadership in his statement on the war. “Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people and is the leading state sponsor of terrorism around the world,” Shapiro wrote. “They must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. The regime and its proxies have killed American servicemembers and innocent civilians, wreaked havoc across the globe, and pose a direct threat to global peace and stability.” Shapiro added that just recently, “tens of thousands of brave Iranians have died standing up for their freedoms against this cruel regime. The people of Iran deserve a government that gives voice to these hopes, respects their rights, and pursues their interests peacefully — not through violence or intimidation.”

That recognition of the ugliness of the Iranian regime set Shapiro apart from his fellow contenders. Yes, he began by criticizing Trump for not seeking congressional approval and “ignoring the guardrails set up by our founders in Philadelphia nearly 250 years ago.” Shapiro also noted that Trump “has not adequately explained why this war is urgent now, what this military campaign may look like, or what the strategic objective is.” Trump has been erratic, Shapiro continued: “Until a few days ago, he was seeking a deal to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program that the president himself claimed just a few months ago was completely destroyed. But today he declared that this is a war for regime change, something he said he would not pursue.” Shapiro ended by noting that he is praying for America’s armed forces. “They are the best of us,” he said. “We have complete faith in their skills and professionalism and they make up the most powerful military on Earth. May God protect our troops.”

So what to make of the top five contenders’ reactions? First, they all spoke in character — Newsom slash and burn, Shapiro balanced, etc. But more importantly, they’re all betting that the potential for things to go wrong in Iran will soon make their criticisms look trenchant. Given the riskiness of Trump’s move, they might be right. And if they are right, Trump and his party will likely be cooked politically. Indeed, from the Republican perspective, the gravity and substance of the Democratic criticisms show how politically critical it is that the president’s Iranian mission succeed.