I believe in diplomacy, multilateralism, international law, and congressional oversight. I am wary — instinctively and historically — of open-ended war in the Middle East. I’ve been through war in the Middle East more times than I am willing to count.

I have felt the consequences of war first hand. I write these words as I am sitting in my bomb shelter, shielding, with my family,  from yet another ballistic missile attack. I saw first hand the damage inflicted on a building hit by a half-ton warhead. I have relatives who are alive today because they shielded in a bomb shelter.

I count my blessing each and every night that the US and Israel are doing everything to prevent a nuclear Iran. I know that if permitted these conventional warheads could and would turn nuclear if given the opportunity

I also know something else: the Islamic Republic of Iran has spent four decades building a regional architecture of terror aimed at the United States, Israel, and moderate Arab states.

This did not begin last week.

It began in 1979 with American diplomats held hostage in Tehran. It continued in 1983 when 241 U.S. Marines were murdered in Beirut by Iranian-backed operatives. It resurfaced in 1994 with the bombing of the Jewish Federation building in 1994 and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. It evolved during the Iraq War, when Iranian-supplied explosively formed penetrators killed and maimed American troops. It persists today through Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and an expanding missile and drone network encircling Israel.

Iran has mastered the gray zone — aggression without formal war, escalation without accountability.

So when the United States takes military action in response to direct threats or sustained proxy attacks, the question for Democrats is not whether we prefer diplomacy. Of course we do. The question is whether diplomacy alone can deter a regime that has repeatedly used violence as statecraft.

The Constitutional Question Matters

Many Democratic lawmakers have raised serious concerns about executive war powers.

They are not wrong to do so.

Article I gives Congress the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution requires notification and limits sustained hostilities absent congressional authorization. Democrats, in particular, have long warned against presidential overreach in matters of war.

Oversight is not disloyalty. It is constitutional hygiene.

But we must also acknowledge precedent. Presidents of both parties have conducted military strikes — in Kosovo, Libya, Syria — without formal declarations of war. The executive branch traditionally asserts authority to defend U.S. forces and respond to imminent threats.

If American troops are under attack from Iranian-backed militias, or if intelligence indicates escalating threats, a president’s constitutional footing is not flimsy. It is contested — but not illegitimate.

There is a difference between demanding consultation and reflexively labeling action “illegal war.”

We can insist on congressional engagement without undermining deterrence in real time.

A Democratic Foreign Policy Is Not a Pacifist One

Being pro-Democratic does not mean being anti-force.

President Obama authorized the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. He expanded drone campaigns against terrorist networks. He used force in Libya to prevent mass slaughter. President Biden authorized strikes in Syria when U.S. forces were attacked.

The Democratic tradition in foreign policy is not isolationism. It is calibrated power — force as a last resort, but force when necessary.

Iran’s strategy has been to exploit American reluctance. Attack through proxies. Deny direct responsibility. Stay just below the threshold that would trigger overwhelming response.

Deterrence erodes not in dramatic collapses, but in incremental tolerances.

For pro-Israel Democrats, the stakes are even clearer.

Iran is not merely a rhetorical adversary of Israel. It is the financial, logistical, and ideological engine behind Hezbollah’s 150,000-plus rockets. It arms Hamas. And we will not forget October 7. It funded militias in Syria. It openly calls for Israel’s destruction while racing toward nuclear threshold capability.

Supporting action that  degrades Iran’s ability to project violence is not abandoning Democratic values. It is protecting a democratic ally and reinforcing regional stability.

The Abraham Accords realigned parts of the Middle East around a shared concern: Iranian expansionism. Gulf states, Israel, and the United States now share a strategic interest in preventing Tehran from believing escalation carries no cost.

The Line We Must Draw

None of this means giving a blank check.

If the current campaign expands into an indefinite war, if Congress is sidelined entirely, it should assert itself. If civilian harm becomes disproportionate, it must be addressed.

But reflexive opposition to any use of force against Iran — regardless of context, signals that America’s red lines are theoretical

We  must recognize that when a regime wages shadow war for forty years, restoring deterrence may require more than speeches.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)