During World War II, when America was confronting fascist regimes hell-bent on exporting their murderous ideologies, Republicans united behind Democrats to form a joint front. They did so even though many Republicans — especially from the nativist wing — were upset with President Franklin Roosevelt’s sanctions on Japan, which the small “Blame America First” crowd subsequently used to explain away Japanese aggression.
In recent decades, however, Congress has prioritized short-term political warfare over national security and America’s place in the world. Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) both sought to undermine President George W. Bush’s isolation of Syrian President Bashar Assad. At the time, Assad was covertly working on nuclear weapons. Within just a few years, he would openly use chemical weapons against his own people. For Pelosi and Kerry, though, embarrassing Bush was the priority.
The same held true for the 2003 Iraq War. When the war erupted, it had bipartisan support. As insurgency raged, Democrats sniffed an opportunity to flip the script. Kerry famously explained he was for the war before he was against it, as if that made him presidential. Pelosi, meanwhile, demanded withdrawal and criticized Bush’s pursuit, without discussion of the consequences of U.S. loss. In 2008, I raised hackles by suggesting Pelosi preferred a Rwanda-like genocide in Iraq to American success for the simple reason that the former would besmirch Bush. The righteous indignation, however, missed the point. American leaders had a choice: help Iraqis defeat insurgents like the Islamic State group or subject those Iraqis to a horrific massacre. Bush ignored Pelosi’s posturing with his surge and Anbar Awakening strategies, but President Barack Obama chose the opposite course. Obama’s decision lay the ground for the Islamic State group’s rise and the Yazidi genocide.
Political myopia is bipartisan. Too many Republicans preferred to criticize Obama’s bombing of Libya and the war in Syria. There was much to criticize, but the United States and the world would be better off if the goal of Congress was to debate how best to win. Rather than, as appears to be the current goal, undercut the pursuit of victory and litigate the past. The politics motivating these antics isn’t well grounded. President George H.W. Bush enjoyed approval ratings above 90% after Kuwait’s liberation in the Gulf War, but still lost the election. Ultimately, Americans vote on the economy, not on Kuwait, Gaza, or Taiwan.
There is much to criticize about President Donald Trump’s conduct of the Iran war. Democrats can condemn both the timing and pursuit of the war. Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have contributed to numerous own goals; they deserve opprobrium. But if Trump and by extension the U.S. fail, the results will be far greater than soiling Trump’s reputation: An empowered Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz and, by proxy, the Bab el-Mandeb can blackmail the world. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps may appear resurgent, but to cease engagement at a time when the Iranian military sends missiles and drones across the region will have ramifications far after Trump.
TRUMP 86S MILITARY OPTION, INSISTS ‘ECONOMIC D-DAY’ WILL FORCE IRAN TO CAPITULATE
Political warfare has consequences, but the degree of Trump derangement syndrome now contributes to a national security crisis. It is one thing to castigate Trump. But every congressional critic should also enunciate how they would roll back Iranian aggression that began not in January 2025 but was pursued for decades. Americans famously navel-gaze, but they cannot ignore that Iranians have agency. Simply standing down or surrendering will not return the world to the status quo prior to the war nor end the conflict.
Perhaps rather than compete over sleights and insults that Trump relishes, both Democratic and Republican hopefuls could demonstrate leadership by charting a path to victory that relies on reality and not rhetoric and wishful thinking.
Michael Rubin is director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum, a distinguished fellow at India’s Usanas Foundation, and a contributor to Beltway Confidential.