Dems eyeing 2028 split on criticism of attacks on Iran – Axios

A significant divergence is emerging within the Democratic Party regarding the appropriate response to and criticism of potential military actions against Iran, a split that analysts suggest could profoundly influence the 2028 presidential primary landscape. This internal debate, highlighted recently by Axios, reveals a complex interplay of foreign policy doctrines, electoral strategy, and the evolving geopolitical situation in the Middle East.

Background: Decades of Shifting Stances and Regional Volatility

The Democratic Party's approach to Iran has historically been characterized by a nuanced blend of diplomatic engagement and firm deterrence, often contrasting sharply with Republican calls for more confrontational tactics. However, this broad consensus has always contained internal tensions, which are now becoming more pronounced as the prospect of future presidential contests draws closer. Understanding the current fault lines requires a review of the historical context and the persistent geopolitical challenges posed by Iran.

Historical Democratic Stances on Iran

The trajectory of Democratic policy towards Iran underwent a significant transformation following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, shifting from a close strategic partnership under the Shah to a relationship marked by antagonism and mistrust. For decades, US policy, largely bipartisan, focused on isolating Iran, containing its revolutionary ideology, and preventing its acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The Obama Administration and the JCPOA

A pivotal moment in Democratic foreign policy towards Iran came with the Obama administration's pursuit and eventual signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015. This multilateral agreement involved Iran and the P5+1 group—China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—alongside the European Union. Its central tenet was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons by significantly curtailing its uranium enrichment capabilities, dismantling key infrastructure, and subjecting its nuclear facilities to an unprecedented level of international inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In exchange, Iran received substantial sanctions relief, allowing its oil exports to resume and access to frozen assets.

The JCPOA represented a cornerstone diplomatic achievement for President Barack Obama, lauded by proponents as a historic triumph for diplomacy, averting a potential military confrontation and rolling back Iran's nuclear clock. Secretary of State John Kerry spearheaded extensive negotiations, often involving direct engagement with Iranian counterparts, a significant departure from previous US policy. Supporters emphasized the deal's robust verification regime, arguing it provided a transparent pathway to ensure Iran's nuclear program remained exclusively peaceful. They pointed to the IAEA's regular reports confirming Iran's compliance in the initial years, demonstrating the agreement's effectiveness in achieving its primary goal. This era cemented a "diplomacy-first" approach within a significant segment of the Democratic Party, particularly its progressive wing, which advocated for multilateralism and de-escalation over military intervention.

However, the JCPOA faced considerable opposition, both domestically within the United States and internationally, particularly from Israel and Saudi Arabia. Critics argued that the deal was too lenient, providing Iran with billions in sanctions relief without adequately addressing its ballistic missile program or its destabilizing regional activities through proxy forces. They contended that the "sunset clauses," which would gradually lift restrictions on Iran's enrichment capacity after a specified period, merely delayed rather than prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, among others, vocally opposed the agreement, labeling it a dangerous concession. Congressional debates were fierce, with many Republicans and some Democrats expressing profound skepticism.

The Trump Administration's Withdrawal and "Maximum Pressure"

The election of Donald Trump in 2016 dramatically altered the trajectory of US-Iran relations. Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in May 2018, despite objections from European allies and the IAEA's continued verification of Iran's compliance. This decision marked a significant repudiation of the Obama-era diplomatic framework.

Following the withdrawal, the Trump administration initiated a "maximum pressure" campaign, reimposing and expanding a comprehensive suite of sanctions aimed at crippling Iran's economy and forcing it to negotiate a new, more expansive deal. These sanctions targeted Iran's oil exports, banking sector, shipping, and key industries, severely impacting its revenue streams and isolating it from the global financial system. The stated goal was to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear program entirely, cease its ballistic missile development, and end its support for regional proxy groups.

The "maximum pressure" campaign led to a period of heightened tensions and numerous escalations in the Persian Gulf. Iran responded by gradually scaling back its commitments under the JCPOA, increasing its uranium enrichment levels, and developing advanced centrifuges. Regional incidents, such as attacks on oil tankers, drone strikes on Saudi oil facilities, and the downing of a US surveillance drone, underscored the precariousness of the situation. The assassination of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 further exacerbated tensions, bringing the US and Iran to the brink of direct military conflict. This period solidified a more confrontational approach among some conservatives and national security hawks, emphasizing the need for robust military deterrence and economic coercion.

The Biden Administration's Pivot

Upon entering office in January 2021, President Joe Biden signaled an initial intent to return to the JCPOA, viewing it as the most effective means to constrain Iran's nuclear program. His administration engaged in indirect talks in Vienna for over a year, attempting to revive the agreement. However, these efforts ultimately stalled, primarily due to disagreements over sanctions relief, Iranian demands, and the broader geopolitical context.

As talks faltered and Iran continued to advance its nuclear program, the Biden administration gradually shifted its posture. While maintaining an openness to diplomacy, the focus pivoted towards a strategy of robust deterrence, enhanced sanctions enforcement, and strengthening regional alliances. The administration emphasized that "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a phrase often interpreted as including military action. Sanctions targeting Iran's drone program, human rights abuses, and support for proxy groups have continued, alongside efforts to bolster regional security cooperation, including through the integration of Israeli and Arab air defense systems. This shift reflects a pragmatic adaptation to evolving realities, attempting to balance diplomatic ideals with the imperative of protecting US interests and allies.

Geopolitical Landscape: A Region in Flux

The Democratic debate over Iran policy is inextricably linked to the volatile and complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, where Iran plays a significant, often disruptive, role.

Iran's Regional Activities

Iran's foreign policy is largely driven by its revolutionary ideology, security concerns, and ambition to project influence across the region. It has cultivated a network of proxy forces and allies, often referred to as the "Axis of Resistance," which includes:

Hezbollah in Lebanon: A powerful political party and militant group, heavily armed and trained by Iran, posing a significant threat to Israel.
* Houthi rebels in Yemen: Supported by Iran, the Houthis have been engaged in a protracted civil war and have recently conducted attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea.
* Various Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria: These groups have targeted US forces and interests, and played a crucial role in supporting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.
* Palestinian militant groups: Iran provides support to groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, further fueling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

These proxy activities allow Iran to exert influence and challenge regional rivals without direct military engagement, creating a persistent source of instability and raising the risk of broader conflicts. Iran also continues to develop its ballistic missile program, which it views as a crucial deterrent, and has significantly advanced its drone capabilities, which it has supplied to Russia for use in Ukraine.

Israel's Security Concerns

For Israel, Iran's nuclear program and its regional activities represent an existential threat. Israeli leaders consistently view a nuclear-armed Iran as an unacceptable risk and have indicated a willingness to take unilateral military action if diplomacy fails. Israel has also conducted numerous airstrikes in Syria and, less frequently, in Lebanon, targeting Iranian weapons transfers, missile manufacturing facilities, and proxy forces. These strikes are part of a long-standing "campaign between wars" aimed at degrading Iran's capabilities and preventing the entrenchment of its forces near Israel's borders. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which began in October 2023, has further exacerbated regional tensions, with fears of a wider conflict involving Iran and its proxies.

Saudi Arabia and Gulf States

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states historically viewed Iran as their primary regional adversary, engaging in proxy conflicts across the Middle East. However, in recent years, there has been a notable shift towards de-escalation and dialogue. Saudi Arabia, for instance, restored diplomatic ties with Iran in 2023, mediated by China, reflecting a desire to reduce regional tensions and focus on domestic economic development. While underlying mistrust persists, this diplomatic thaw indicates a complex and evolving regional dynamic that US policy must navigate. The Abraham Accords, which saw Israel normalize relations with several Arab states, also aimed to build a regional front against Iran, though their full potential remains to be seen amidst current conflicts.

US Strategic Interests

The United States maintains significant strategic interests in the Middle East, including ensuring the free flow of oil, combating terrorism, preventing nuclear proliferation, and supporting the security of its allies. Iran's actions directly challenge many of these interests, forcing the US to balance competing objectives: deterring Iranian aggression, preventing a nuclear Iran, avoiding a costly regional war, and promoting human rights. The presence of US troops in Iraq and Syria, primarily for counter-terrorism operations, also places them at risk from Iranian-backed militias, necessitating a robust defense posture.

Domestic Political Context: The Road to 2028

Foreign policy, while often overshadowed by domestic issues in US elections, can become a defining differentiator in presidential primaries, particularly within a party as ideologically diverse as the Democrats.

Role of Foreign Policy in Primaries

Presidential primaries often serve as a battleground for competing ideological visions, and foreign policy is no exception. Candidates use their stances on international issues to appeal to specific segments of the party base, differentiate themselves from rivals, and signal their leadership capabilities on the global stage. For Democrats, debates over military intervention, the use of force, diplomacy, and alliances can expose deep philosophical divides. The party’s progressive wing often advocates for a non-interventionist foreign policy, prioritizing human rights and diplomacy, while more centrist or national security-oriented Democrats tend to support a robust defense and assertive projection of US power.

Influence of Different Factions

The Democratic Party is a coalition of various factions, each with distinct foreign policy perspectives:

Progressive Wing: This wing, often represented by figures like Senator Bernie Sanders and members of "The Squad" in the House, generally favors a non-interventionist foreign policy, emphasizing diplomatic solutions, arms control, and reducing military spending. They are often skeptical of military interventions, particularly in the Middle East, viewing them as costly, counterproductive, and prone to unintended consequences. They advocate for addressing root causes of conflict and prioritizing humanitarian concerns.
* Centrist/Establishment Wing: This more mainstream faction, which includes many in the Biden administration and figures like Vice President Kamala Harris, typically supports a robust internationalist approach. They believe in strong alliances, multilateral institutions, and the judicious use of military force when necessary to protect US interests and allies. While preferring diplomacy, they are prepared to employ sanctions and military deterrence.
* National Security-Oriented Democrats: A smaller but influential group, these Democrats often align more closely with traditional hawkish positions, advocating for a strong military, decisive action against adversaries, and close alliances with countries like Israel. They tend to prioritize national security over broad non-interventionist principles.

Donor Base and Advocacy Groups

The influence of various advocacy groups and donor networks also shapes the foreign policy debate. Organizations like J Street advocate for a diplomacy-first approach to Iran and a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine, often appealing to the progressive and centrist wings. In contrast, groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) advocate for strong US-Israel ties and a firm stance against Iran, influencing more centrist and national security-oriented Democrats. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) often lobbies for diplomatic engagement and human rights in Iran. These groups contribute to campaigns, mobilize voters, and provide policy expertise, ensuring their perspectives are heard by aspiring candidates.

Public Opinion

Public opinion on foreign policy issues, particularly those involving military action, can be volatile. While Americans generally favor diplomacy over war, specific events or perceived threats can shift sentiment. Democratic voters, in particular, tend to be more skeptical of military interventions and more supportive of international cooperation. Candidates must navigate these sentiments, articulating positions that resonate with their base while also appearing credible on national security to the broader electorate.

Key Developments: The Deepening Divide

Recent geopolitical events, particularly those involving Iran and its proxies, have intensified the internal Democratic debate, bringing the latent divisions to the forefront. The Biden administration's responses to these incidents have, in turn, become a focal point of criticism from both within and outside the party.

Recent Attacks and Responses

The latter half of 2023 and early 2024 witnessed a significant escalation of regional tensions, directly implicating Iran and its network of proxy forces. These events have tested the Biden administration's foreign policy and exposed the fault lines within the Democratic Party.

Attacks on US Personnel and Bases

Since the October 2023 attacks by Hamas on Israel, which ignited the ongoing Gaza conflict, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria significantly increased their attacks on US military personnel and bases. These groups, including Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, launched dozens of rocket and drone attacks, causing injuries to over 170 US service members, including traumatic brain injuries. These attacks, often framed as retaliation for US support for Israel and US presence in the region, posed a direct threat to American forces and challenged US deterrence capabilities.

For instance, on January 28, 2024, a drone attack struck Tower 22, a small US military outpost in Jordan near the Syrian border, killing three American soldiers and injuring dozens more. This incident marked the first US fatalities from enemy fire in the Middle East since the early days of the Biden administration and triggered a significant reassessment of the US response strategy.

Houthi Attacks in the Red Sea

Concurrently, the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen escalated their attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, a critical global maritime trade route. Beginning in November 2023, the Houthis launched numerous drones and missiles, targeting vessels they claimed were linked to Israel or heading to Israeli ports. These attacks, ostensibly in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, disrupted global supply chains, forced shipping companies to reroute vessels around Africa, and significantly increased shipping costs. The Houthis also targeted US naval vessels, further escalating the crisis.

US Retaliatory Strikes

In response to these escalating attacks, the Biden administration authorized a series of retaliatory strikes. Following the Tower 22 attack, the US launched extensive airstrikes on February 2, 2024, targeting more than 85 sites in Iraq and Syria associated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and its affiliated militias. These strikes involved long-range bombers and precision munitions, hitting command and control centers, intelligence hubs, rocket, missile, and drone storage facilities, and logistics and munition supply chain facilities. The administration stated these strikes were intended to degrade the groups' capabilities and deter further attacks.

Similarly, in response to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, the US, often in conjunction with the United Kingdom, launched multiple rounds of strikes against Houthi military targets in Yemen, including missile launchers, drone storage sites, and radar facilities. These operations, initially dubbed "Operation Prosperity Guardian," aimed to restore freedom of navigation and deter further Houthi aggression.

The Emerging Democratic Divide

The administration's decision to authorize these military responses, while supported by some, has illuminated a significant and growing split within the Democratic Party. This division is not merely tactical but reflects fundamental differences in foreign policy philosophy.

The Progressive Wing's Critique

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party has been the most vocal in its criticism of the Biden administration's retaliatory strikes and its broader approach to Iran. This faction, which includes prominent figures like Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and other members of "The Squad," generally adheres to a non-interventionist foreign policy doctrine.

Their arguments often center on several key points:

Risk of Escalation: Progressives express deep concern that military action, even retaliatory strikes, risks a wider, more devastating regional conflict. They argue that such actions can trigger a dangerous cycle of tit-for-tat responses, drawing the US into another "endless war" in the Middle East, a region where the US has already spent trillions and lost thousands of lives over the past two decades. They point to the historical precedent of miscalculation leading to unintended consequences.
* Lack of Congressional Authorization: A significant point of contention is the perceived lack of congressional authorization for these military actions. Progressives argue that under Article I of the Constitution, Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war. They contend that repeated presidential use of Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from decades past, or relying on Article II inherent powers, bypasses democratic accountability and risks executive overreach. They call for a renewed debate and vote in Congress before any military action is taken.
* Focus on Diplomacy and De-escalation: This wing emphasizes that military force is rarely a solution and often exacerbates underlying problems. They advocate for prioritizing diplomatic engagement, de-escalation efforts, and addressing the root causes of regional instability, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They believe that sustained diplomatic pressure, coupled with multilateral negotiations, offers a more sustainable path to peace and security than military confrontation.
* Humanitarian Concerns and Civilian Casualties: Progressives often highlight the potential for civilian casualties and humanitarian crises resulting from military interventions. They argue that US foreign policy should prioritize human rights and the protection of civilian lives, and that military action often undermines these values.
* Diversion of Resources: Critics also argue that continued military engagement in the Middle East diverts resources and attention from pressing domestic needs and other global challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, and economic inequality.

Senator Sanders, for instance, has repeatedly called for an end to "endless wars" and urged a diplomatic approach to Iran, warning against actions that could lead to a broader conflict. Representative Ocasio-Cortez and others have explicitly questioned the legality and wisdom of the strikes, demanding congressional oversight and a clear strategy for de-escalation.

The Centrist/Establishment Wing's Stance

In contrast, the centrist and establishment wing of the Democratic Party, largely represented by the Biden administration itself and many moderate members of Congress, generally supports the retaliatory strikes as a necessary measure for deterrence and protection of US interests. While also preferring diplomacy, this faction emphasizes the need for a robust and credible response to aggression.

Their arguments typically include:

Deterrence and Protection of US Personnel: Supporters argue that failing to respond forcefully to attacks on US personnel would embolden adversaries and invite further aggression. They contend that a strong military response is essential to deter future attacks, protect American lives, and maintain the credibility of US power.
* Defense of Allies: This wing emphasizes the US commitment to its regional allies, particularly Israel and Gulf states. They argue that a firm stance against Iran's destabilizing activities is crucial for regional stability and for reassuring partners who rely on US security guarantees.
* Accountability for Iranian Proxies: They assert that Iran must be held accountable for the actions of its proxies, as these groups are often armed, funded, and directed by Tehran. Responding to proxy attacks is thus seen as a way to indirectly pressure Iran.
* Sanctions as a Primary Tool: While acknowledging the limitations of military force, this faction continues to view economic sanctions as a vital tool to exert pressure on Iran, curb its nuclear ambitions, and limit its regional influence. They advocate for robust enforcement of existing sanctions and the imposition of new ones when warranted.
* Pragmatic Realism: This perspective often embraces a more pragmatic realism, acknowledging that while diplomacy is preferred, it must be backed by credible military power. They argue that a purely non-interventionist approach could be perceived as weakness, inviting further aggression from revisionist powers.

President Biden and his national security team have consistently framed the retaliatory strikes as defensive, proportionate, and aimed at de-escalation rather than escalation. They have emphasized that the US does not seek a wider war with Iran but will protect its forces and interests. Key figures like Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan have articulated this nuanced approach, balancing deterrence with a stated desire to avoid direct conflict.

Axios Reporting and its Significance

Axios's reporting on this internal Democratic split holds significant weight because it brings to light what might otherwise remain a simmering internal debate. By highlighting the differing views, Axios not only informs the public but also serves as a bellwether for potential fault lines in future political contests. The report likely gathered sentiments from various Democratic strategists, congressional aides, and potential 2028 campaign operatives, indicating that these foreign policy positions are already being considered as defining issues.

The significance lies in:

Early Positioning for 2028: The article signals that potential 2028 presidential aspirants are already beginning to stake out their foreign policy positions, or at least are aware that they will need to. A candidate's stance on Iran, military intervention, and the role of diplomacy could become a critical differentiator in a crowded primary field.
* Internal Party Cohesion: The report underscores the challenge for the Democratic Party in maintaining cohesion on complex national security issues. A significant split could weaken the party's ability to present a unified front on foreign policy, potentially providing fodder for Republican attacks.
* Influence on Biden's Second Term (if applicable): Even before 2028, the emerging split could influence the Biden administration's approach to Iran, as it seeks to balance the demands of its progressive base with the need for effective national security policy.

Impact: Reaching Beyond Party Lines

The Democratic Party's internal debate over Iran policy extends far beyond the confines of primary politics, with significant implications for potential 2028 presidential aspirants, the future direction of US foreign policy, and the broader domestic political landscape.

2028 Presidential Aspirants: A Tightrope Walk

For potential Democratic presidential candidates eyeing the 2028 race, the emerging split on Iran policy presents a formidable challenge. They must navigate a complex ideological terrain, appealing to diverse factions within the party while simultaneously projecting competence and electability to a broader national audience.

Positioning and Differentiation

Candidates like Vice President Kamala Harris, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, among others, will need to carefully calibrate their stances. Each will face pressure to articulate a clear vision for US engagement with Iran and the Middle East.

Kamala Harris: As Vice President, Harris is inextricably linked to the Biden administration's current approach, which blends deterrence with an openness to diplomacy. Her challenge will be to either staunchly defend this pragmatic middle ground or, if she chooses to differentiate, subtly pivot while avoiding a perception of disloyalty. She might emphasize the necessity of protecting US troops and allies while also reiterating a commitment to multilateralism and preventing escalation.
* Gavin Newsom: The California Governor has cultivated a national profile and often aligns with the progressive wing on many domestic issues. On foreign policy, he might lean towards a more diplomatic, non-interventionist stance, appealing to the party's left flank. However, a complete rejection of military deterrence could be perceived as weakness by centrist voters and national security advocates. He would need to articulate how a diplomacy-first approach could effectively counter Iran's regional aggression and nuclear ambitions without appearing naive.
* Gretchen Whitmer and J.B. Pritzker: Governors from key swing states, Whitmer and Pritzker, might gravitate towards a more centrist, pragmatic approach, reflecting the broader electorate in their states. They could emphasize a balanced strategy that prioritizes American security interests and alliances while exercising caution regarding military intervention. Their challenge would be to avoid alienating either the progressive base, which might demand a stronger anti-war stance, or the national security-conscious voters, who expect firm leadership.

The candidates' ability to articulate a coherent and compelling foreign policy vision will be crucial for distinguishing themselves in a potentially crowded field. This will involve not just stating a position, but explaining the underlying philosophy, the practical steps, and the expected outcomes of their approach.

Unifying the Party vs. Appealing to Bases

A significant challenge for any Democratic nominee will be to unify the party after a potentially divisive primary. A candidate who leans too heavily into the progressive critique of military action might alienate centrist voters who prioritize national security. Conversely, a candidate who appears too hawkish could demobilize the progressive base, which is crucial for grassroots organizing and voter turnout. The successful candidate will likely need to find a way to bridge these divides, perhaps by emphasizing diplomatic solutions while also affirming the necessity of protecting American interests and personnel. This could involve, for example, advocating for renewed diplomatic efforts with Iran while simultaneously supporting robust defense capabilities and targeted responses to specific threats.

Fundraising and Endorsements

Foreign policy positions also influence fundraising and endorsements. Progressive donors and advocacy groups will likely gravitate towards candidates who advocate for de-escalation and diplomacy. Conversely, more establishment-aligned donors and national security experts might favor candidates who project strength and a willingness to use force when necessary. The endorsements of key figures, such as former presidents, influential senators, or respected foreign policy experts, could also be swayed by a candidate's stance on Iran.

US Foreign Policy: Credibility and Cohesion

The internal Democratic debate has profound implications for the coherence and credibility of US foreign policy on the global stage, particularly concerning the Middle East.

Consistency and Credibility

Allies and adversaries alike observe US domestic political debates for signals about future policy directions. A deeply divided Democratic Party on a critical issue like Iran could project an image of inconsistency and unpredictability, potentially undermining US credibility. Allies might question the long-term reliability of US commitments, while adversaries might be emboldened to test perceived weaknesses. A unified front, even with internal discussions, is generally seen as a sign of strength and resolve. The ability of the US to speak with a relatively unified voice on Iran is crucial for effective diplomacy and deterrence.

Impact on Regional Stability

The ongoing debate could influence the practical execution of US policy in the Middle East. If a future Democratic administration were to adopt a significantly different approach to Iran—either more confrontational or more conciliatory—it could dramatically alter regional dynamics. A perceived shift towards a less assertive posture might encourage Iranian proxies to escalate activities, while a more aggressive stance could trigger a wider conflict. Regional partners, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, will be closely watching these debates, as their own security strategies are often intertwined