Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

Something has been missing from Democrats’ response to the war in Iran since President Donald Trump announced “major combat operations” early Saturday morning. Party leaders’ focus, so far, has only been on the process.

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, summing up the prevailing sentiment in his party. His Senate counterpart, Chuck Schumer, similarly called for more information.

Undoubtedly the process complaints are merited, as there hasn’t really been a process.  Trump made no attempt to sell the war to either the public or Congress, and days into it, the administration can’t get its story straight about why the war was necessary or what the goal of it is.

But Democrats’ focus on process papers over fractures in the underlying policy itself: Is war against Iran a good idea, or not? While the left is comfortable outwardly opposing it and some in the center support it, the broad middle hasn’t found its footing. If the war becomes a debacle, have no doubt that just about every Democrat in office will rush to say that they knew it was a terrible idea from the get-go. But many Democrats have a long and well-documented history of hawkishness toward Iran, jumbling their thoughts and muddling their response.

On the poles of the party, at least, you will get some clear answers.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley and Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example—two of the most progressive Democratic senators—have been willing to say the magic words that have eluded much of their caucus: “No war with Iran.” This is not a difficult question for them. The president is deeply unpopular, in part because he’s viewed as focused too much on stray pet projects and foreign policy instead of the cost of living, and now he wants to attack Iran for reasons that he can’t articulate and with objectives that change by the hour? He’s doing this in a way that exposes serious fissures within his own party? He says “That’s the way it is” about American soldiers dying? Why, from these senators’ points of view—on both policy and politics—is this even a question? No war with Iran!

More centrist Democratic members and those with long track records of supporting Israel, meanwhile, are openly supportive of Operation Epic Fury. New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer celebrated the administration for taking “decisive action to defend our national security, fight terror, protect our allies, and stand with the Iranian people.” Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, meanwhile—before hostilities started—had referred to a resolution requiring Trump to cease hostilities with Iran as the “Ayatollah Protection Act.” And Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, long the most vocal supporter of Israel among Senate Democrats, has been trashing his party for not being more supportive of the strikes.

The broad peloton of Democrats, though, are pairing every procedural complaint under the sun with to-be-clear paragraphs about how they, too, believe the Iranian regime must be dealt with. Schumer in his statement, noted that “Iran’s malign regional activities, nuclear ambitions, and harsh oppression of the Iranian people demands American strength, resolve, regional coordination, and strategic clarity.” Jeffries said that Iran “must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region,” but that Trump needed to come before Congress.

Schumer and Jeffries, like many Democrats, have a long history of supporting sanctions against Iran, warning that the Iranian regime is an “existential threat” to Israel, and describing Iran as “the largest state sponsor of terror in the world.” Schumer famously opposed President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran as he didn’t believe it would meaningfully constrain the regime’s ambitions. For many who did support it—like Jeffries—it was still a difficult vote. And now, even in this day and age, under an unpopular president acting erratically and with an American public that’s weary of new wars, there’s always the voice in the back of Democrats’ heads warning them not to look weak against bad guys in the Middle East.

This Is Different Than Trump’s Past Strikes on Iran and Venezuela

Popular in News & Politics

Jasmine Crockett or James Talarico? Democrats Don’t Have an Easy Answer, but They Do Have a Clear One.

I could keep quoting these, but they’re all the same. Here’s Sen. Elissa Slotkin, here’s Sen. Jacky Rosen and her Nevada counterpart Catherine Cortez Masto. Here’s Sen. Mark Kelly. They’re all tiptoeing, explaining—not incorrectly—that Trump’s haphazard method and strategy has made for a very risky situation, and that Trump needs to come before Congress. They are all saying that Trump is, at the very least, not keeping with the spirit of the Constitution in going at this unilaterally. They are all connoting that Trump is a doofus. They are not saying whether they think war with Iran is a bad idea.

What most Democrats appear willing to do, at least, is go on the record this week in opposition to the process. The House and Senate will vote on War Powers Resolutions requiring Trump to terminate military force against Iran absent explicit authorization from Congress. These resolutions may not pass in either chamber. Some Democrats openly supporting the war will vote against them, while Republicans will keep most of their members in line to support the administration.

In other words, this is a free vote in which Democrats can express a form of generalized disgruntlement with the project, but that’s about it. It buys them a little more time to sort their thoughts—or have their thoughts sorted for them. Because I suspect, the longer this goes on, that Democratic voters across the country will catch on to the word games and nudge all Democrats closer to “No war with Iran” as the winning message. Gas prices, after all, are going up.

Get the best of news and politics

© Slate