A brewing clash on Capitol Hill is exposing sharp divisions within the Democratic Party as President Donald Trump signals he may be preparing for a sweeping military strike on Iran.
Behind closed doors, top Democrats are reportedly working to prevent a vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would require congressional authorization before any U.S. attack on Iran. The measure, introduced by Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat, and Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican, is intended to reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over decisions of war and peace.
The urgency is palpable. Trump has amassed significant U.S. military assets in the Middle East in recent weeks, prompting speculation of imminent action. Iranian officials, for their part, have warned that any large-scale U.S. strike would trigger retaliation, potentially targeting American bases and personnel across the region.
Yet even as public opposition to another Middle East war runs high, Democratic leaders appear hesitant to force members to take a definitive position.
A YouGov poll published this week found that only 27 percent of Americans support military action against Iran, while 49 percent oppose it. Among Democrats, opposition is overwhelming: 76 percent said they oppose war, with just 9 percent expressing support.
Despite those numbers, independent journalist Aída Chávez reported in her newsletter Capital & Empire that Democratic staff on the House Foreign Affairs Committee have worked to “dampen momentum and prevent the Iran war powers vote from advancing.”
According to multiple sources cited by Chávez, a senior Democratic staffer warned that between 20 and 40 Democrats might defect from the bipartisan resolution — a projection critics say was inflated to discourage support and create the impression of inevitable failure.
A senior Democratic congressional aide described the maneuvering as a familiar pattern.
“Leadership rarely comes out and says they oppose these votes outright, because they know the underlying issue is popular with the base,” the aide said. “Instead, you see process concerns, timing objections, and caucus-unity arguments used to slow things down or keep members off the record.”
In the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has not actively whipped support for the Khanna-Massie resolution, according to Capitol Hill sources. Few Democratic members have publicly endorsed the measure, even though no alternative war powers proposals are currently scheduled for consideration.
The quiet resistance reflects a delicate balancing act: opposing Trump’s potential war without appearing weak on national security — or alienating influential pro-Israel donors.
In the Senate, Democratic leaders have largely framed their concerns in procedural terms rather than substantive opposition to military action.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the administration for discussing potential strikes in closed-door briefings but stopped short of rejecting the possibility of force.
“The administration has to make its case to the American people as something as important as this,” Schumer said.
Similarly, Senator Chris Coons, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, questioned the clarity of Trump’s objectives rather than opposing military action outright.
“The president and his administration have not tried to explain whether their goal is to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, protect Iranian protestors, pursue regime change or simply distract from his failure to deliver on his promises at home,” Coons said in a statement. “Congress and the American people need answers about what our objectives are in Iran.”
The emphasis on transparency and clarity — rather than on constitutional authority or the risks of escalation — has frustrated anti-war Democrats, who argue that procedural complaints amount to tacit acceptance of the president’s power to initiate hostilities.
The current tensions cannot be separated from Trump’s 2018 decision to withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.
At the time of the U.S. withdrawal, the International Atomic Energy Agency assessed that Iran was complying with the agreement’s terms. Since the deal’s collapse, however, Iran has significantly expanded its uranium enrichment activities, according to subsequent agency reports.
Supporters of diplomacy argue that the escalation cycle began with Washington’s exit from the accord, which had placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Two pro-Israel Democrats, Representatives Jared Moskowitz and Josh Gottheimer, publicly opposed the Khanna-Massie resolution last week. Moskowitz derided it as the “Ayatollah Protection Act,” framing the legislation as an impediment to confronting Tehran.
In a joint statement, they asserted that Iran is “still pursuing a nuclear weapon,” despite U.S. intelligence assessments and the IAEA’s previous findings that Iran had not resumed an active weapons program.
Iranian leaders, meanwhile, have signaled openness to a negotiated agreement that would cap enrichment levels while preserving their right to peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Khanna has been unusually blunt in describing the forces aligned against his resolution.
Appearing on the podcast Breaking Points, he argued that Democrats seeking to block the vote are influenced by “powerful interests that are itching to have regime change in Iran.”
“This has been a long-term goal of AIPAC and other groups,” Khanna said, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “So when you stand up and say, ‘I’m going to introduce legislation to uphold the Constitution and not get us into another war,’ you make enemies.”
Khanna suggested that fear of political retaliation from wealthy donors and advocacy groups has deterred some Democrats from backing the resolution.
“It’s not that they may disagree with it,” he said. “It’s just that they don’t want billionaires and powerful people to be targeting them.”
The influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups has long shaped Washington’s Middle East policy. Schumer is among the top congressional recipients of AIPAC-linked campaign funding, according to public records.
Yet the political calculus is complicated. As reporting by Drop Site News indicated, some Senate Democrats privately believed that if Trump were determined to attack Iran, it might be politically advantageous to let him bear responsibility for the fallout.
According to conversations cited by the outlet with an aide to Schumer earlier this year, several Democratic senators believed that a war with Iran would likely be a “political catastrophe.” Paradoxically, that very risk made some inclined to avoid blocking Trump — calculating that the political damage would primarily hurt him.
“The hope was that Iran would take a blow and so would Trump — a win-win for Democrats,” the report said.
Such thinking underscores a profound tension between constitutional principle and partisan strategy.
Trump is reportedly weighing a broad military operation that could include strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and even targeted assassinations of senior Iranian leaders.
Tehran has responded with stark warnings. Iranian officials have declared that, in the event of a massive U.S. attack, American military bases in the region would be considered “legitimate targets.”
The United States maintains tens of thousands of troops across the Middle East, including in Iraq, Syria, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. A regional war could expose U.S. service members to missile and drone strikes, as well as attacks by Iran-aligned militias.
Military analysts caution that even limited strikes could spiral. Iran’s network of allied groups — including Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Iraq and Syria — possesses significant rocket and missile capabilities. Israel could also be drawn into the conflict, raising the prospect of a multi-front regional confrontation.
For a Democratic Party still grappling with the legacy of the Iraq War, the optics are fraught. Many Democrats who supported the 2003 invasion later described their votes as mistakes. The Khanna-Massie resolution offers members a chance to draw a line against unilateral executive war-making.
But it also forces them to take a stand in a politically charged environment where accusations of weakness on Iran can carry electoral consequences.
Khanna said he plans to meet with House Democrats this week to rally support and believes he can secure enough backing to force a vote by next week — though he acknowledged that “it’s taking work.”
“There are a lot of people in Congress who just would prefer that these issues go away,” he said.
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Congress retains the authority to authorize military force and can compel the withdrawal of troops engaged in hostilities without approval. However, presidents of both parties have often stretched or sidestepped the law, citing national security imperatives.
Whether the Khanna-Massie resolution advances could determine not only the trajectory of U.S.-Iran relations but also the balance of power between Congress and the presidency.
If Democratic leaders succeed in sidelining the vote, critics warn it would reinforce a pattern in which lawmakers cede war-making authority to the executive branch — even when their own voters oppose intervention.
If the vote proceeds, it could become one of the most consequential congressional showdowns of Trump’s presidency, forcing lawmakers to publicly declare whether they support or oppose a potential war with Iran.
