As the chair of American Democrats in Israel, it is clear I consider myself a Democrat. I have voted for Democrats my entire life. I believe in liberal democracy, strong alliances, diplomacy whenever possible, and constitutional limits on presidential power.

I also live in Israel.

Living here has a way of clarifying certain realities that can sometimes become blurred in American political debates.

One of those realities is Iran.

From Israel’s vantage point, Iran is not an abstract policy debate. It is not simply a talking point in Washington or a partisan argument between Republicans and Democrats. Iran’s current  regime  openly calls for Israel’s destruction, arms militias that attack Israel’s borders, and relentlessly works to expand its influence across the Middle East. And Iran does  not care if the Israeli government is headed by Menachem Begin or Benjamin Netanyahu.

Which is why I find myself increasingly uneasy with the way many Democrats in the US are reacting to the current confrontation with Iran.

Too often, our analysis stems from an emotional reaction that is less about Iran and more about Donald Trump.

Let me be clear: there are plenty of reasons for Democrats to criticize Donald Trump. His rhetoric, his approach to alliances, and his governing style have alarmed many of us who believe deeply in democratic norms.

And yes, there are legitimate constitutional questions about presidential authority to initiate military action without explicit congressional approval. Democrats raising those concerns are performing an important function in a democratic system.

But something else is happening in the current debate.

For many Democrats, opposition to Trump has become so central to their political identity that it is beginning to distort how they view the world.

Instead of asking the strategic question: How should the US  confront Iranian aggression? The debate often begins and ends with: What is Trump doing, and how do we oppose it?

That may be understandable politically. But from where I sit in Israel, it is also deeply troubling.

Iran Looks Different from the Middle East

Ask the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states.  Ask them about their relationship to Iran. Not just today but going back to the Shah’s fall in 1979. It is amazing that the Arab Gulf states, that once viewed Israel as the primary threat, now see Iran as the central destabilizing force in the region.

Understand this.  When you live in the Middle East, Iran is not an abstraction.

You see its fingerprints everywhere: Hezbollah’s rockets in Lebanon, Iranian‑backed militias in Iraq and Syria, the Houthis threatening international shipping in the Red Sea, and a nuclear program that has steadily advanced despite years of diplomacy.

This is not an Israeli talking point. It is a regional reality.

Iran’s Long History of Hostility Toward the US

Iran’s confrontation with the US did not begin with Donald Trump—or even in the last decade.

It has been a defining feature of the Islamic Republic since 1979.

Shortly after the Iranian Revolution, militants stormed the American embassy in Tehran and held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days, launching a crisis that permanently shattered U.S.–Iran relations.

The pattern of hostility continued throughout the following decades.

In 1983, Iranian‑backed Hezbollah operatives bombed the US embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people including 17 Americans. Later that same year, another Hezbollah suicide attack destroyed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American servicemen in one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. forces since World War II.

Iranian‑backed militant groups continued targeting Americans through the 1980s by kidnapping Western hostages in Lebanon.

The violence did not stop there. In 1996, a massive truck bomb struck the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. Air Force personnel and injuring hundreds more. American investigators later linked the attack to a militant group supported by Iran.

More recently, during the Iraq War, Iranian‑backed militias supplied with Iranian weapons targeted American soldiers with sophisticated roadside bombs and rockets. U.S. military officials later estimated that hundreds of American troops were killed by Iranian‑supplied weapons.

This four‑decade pattern matters because it reminds us that Iran’s hostility toward the US did not begin with any particular American president. It is embedded in the ideology of the regime itself.

Democrats Once Understood the Threat

Democrats themselves once spoke very clearly about the dangers posed by Iran.

When President Barack Obama negotiated the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” he did not argue that Iran was benign. Quite the opposite.

The deal was justified precisely because Iran was seen as dangerous enough to require strict limits on its nuclear program. The agreement capped uranium enrichment levels, limited the size of Iran’s nuclear stockpile, and subjected the program to international inspections.

But acknowledging the promise of the deal also requires acknowledging something else: Iran repeatedly undermined the agreement.

The Reality of Iran’s Violations

Under the terms of the nuclear deal, Iran was required to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent, cap its stockpile at 300 kilograms, and restrict the use of advanced centrifuges.

Over time, however, Iran moved beyond those limits. Iran accumulated enriched uranium far beyond the allowed threshold and eventually enriched uranium to levels as high as 60 percent, far beyond what the agreement permitted and technically close to weapons‑grade material.

Tehran also deployed more advanced centrifuges than the agreement allowed and repeatedly limited the transparency expected by international inspectors.

None of this means the original agreement was pointless. Many analysts believe the deal did temporarily slow Iran’s nuclear program.

But it does mean something Democrats struggle to say out loud: the Iranian regime was never a reliable partner.

The Progressive Shift

Part of the current Democratic discomfort with confronting Iran reflects the growing influence of the progressive wing of the party.

Many progressives view American military power with deep suspicion, shaped by the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan. That skepticism is understandable. But skepticism can sometimes turn into reflexive opposition.

From Israel, that imbalance is striking because Iranian aggression here is not theoretical—it is operational.

The Danger of Letting Trump Define Everything

Donald Trump has become the central organizing force of American politics—even for his opponents. For many Democrats, every issue now passes through the “Trump filter.”

But foreign policy cannot be conducted that way. Iran’s ambitions do not change depending on who sits in the Oval Office.

A Better Democratic Response

There is a better path for Democrats. One that is both principled and realistic.

Democrats should defend congressional oversight of military action. But Democrats should also speak honestly about the threat posed by the Iranian regime and offer a credible strategy for confronting that threat. We need a plan  that combines diplomacy, economic pressure, regional alliances, and, when necessary, deterrence.  If  Iran is allowed to get to the point of uranium enrichment that would give them nuclear weapon capabilities. , This would be the bomb fired towards Israel, not the 500kg or 1 ton “conventional” bombs we are dealing daily.

Criticizing Trump may energize the Democratic base. But if Democrats want to take the lead on foreign policy again, we must do more than oppose him.

Living in Israel has reminded me of something Washington sometimes forgets:

The Middle East does not revolve around American politics.

And Iran certainly does not care which party controls Congress.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)