Democrats not yet unified in first post-election Iran war test

Congressional Democrats will face the first test of their willingness to translate their electoral gains into action against the Iran war before the new Congress is seated in January.

While almost all Democrats appear united in wanting to end the war, a question of how to do so — and, perhaps more importantly, when to do so — is looming.

Some are urging the current Congress to target Dec. 11, when ongoing government spending authority runs out. Though Democrats will still be in the minority at that point, activists and a number of members argue that the midterm results give the party both the political capital and the leverage needed to act.

“I’m not interested in continuing to throw a blank check to Pete Hegseth for a war the American people never authorized,” Rep. Chris DeLuzio (D-Pa.) told reporters on Wednesday. “That’s on the Republicans. They have full control of this Congress until January. If they want to shut the government down, that is on them.”

A regular appropriations bills or short-term continuing resolution (CR) is subject to the filibuster, meaning it requires 60 Senate votes to pass. As a result, the argument goes, Democrats should use their power in this Congress to block any legislation that does not cut off funding for the war, and be prepared to shut down the government during the lame duck period if necessary.

“If Democrats are afraid of the politics of shutting down the government if necessary to end the war now, while they are in the minority and much of the onus is on Republicans to keep the government funded, I don't see how they suddenly become less averse to a shutdown once they are in control,” Jamal Abdi, President of the National Iranian American Council, told Responsible Statecraft. (President Donald Trump would be tempted to veto any effort to defund the war next year, which would also lead to a shutdown.)

Some Republicans have floated pursuing a reconciliation bill that would require a simple majority, though reports suggest that even that math could be complicated, with at least four Republican Senators on the record saying they are hesitant to push through such funding for the war.

A “blue wave,” fueled in major part by widespread dissatisfaction with the war in Iran and its economic fallout, gave Democrats at least seven new Senate seats and 42 House seats in the midterm elections last week. Since then, Democrats have argued that they gained a mandate to end the unpopular war.

Polling since the midterm has reinforced the idea that the public not only disapproves of the war in Iran, but expects Congress to take action. A Tuesday poll from Reuters/Ipsos found that 71% of respondents, including 93% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans want Congress to pass legislation that would end the conflict.

One Senate source, speaking on condition of anonymity, questioned whether a shutdown could effectively end the war, citing Trump's willingness to circumvent spending laws to pay military members during the government shutdown in October. Still, Democrats may see political value in pursuing the strategy to demonstrate to voters that they are acting on their antiwar mandate.

While Democrats appear to agree that ending the war is a popular message, the party has not yet settled on targeting next month’s deadline as a target.

On Tuesday, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the party was exploring “every tool” to wind down the war, but that it couldn’t be done “with the snap of our fingers.” The senator has endorsed a short-term continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the government into the new year — and until the Democrats take control of Congress — but was noncommittal on whether the stopgap bill would include a provision limiting funding for the war. If that short-term CR does not include restrictions on military operations in Iran, it would allow existing funding for the war to continue in the meantime.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), on the other hand, is among those on the Hill calling for immediate action.

“We have a budget that currently expires on December 11,” Kaine recently said. “What we want to do is cut off funding for the war, unless the president is able to convince Congress to authorize it.” Kaine, a member of the Armed Services Committee, added that language cutting off all funding for war operations in Iran should be included in the funding bill to be voted on next month and noted that Republicans need Democratic votes in order to pass a funding bill.

“I will not support a single dime for Trump’s illegal and senseless war in Iran. It is endangering our troops and civilians throughout the region and driving up prices here at home. Americans made clear at the polls this week: they are sick of this war and want out,” Sen. Chris van Hollen (D-Md.) told RS last week. “For all these reasons Democrats should use our leverage on both funding negotiations and the NDAA to defund this war now.”

At least two other senators — Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — have also said they would not support a government funding bill that continues funding for the war.

In the House, Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) have made similar pledges.

Khanna has drawn parallels to the Vietnam War, which was defunded in 1973 via a provision in a continuing resolution that prohibited funds "to finance directly or indirectly combat activities by United States military forces in or over or from off the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia."

The Senate source told RS that Democrats may be reluctant to risk the political fallout of a government shutdown, particularly when they are weeks away from taking control of Congress.

But another senior Democratic Senate staffer pointed to the outcome of the fight over Trump's “border wall” following the 2018 midterms as evidence that Democrats might not be the ones to bear the political costs of a shutdown. That dispute produced what was then the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Once the shutdown concluded in January 2019, a poll found that 53% of Americans blamed Trump and congressional Republicans, compared to 29% who held Democrats responsible.

The Democratic leadership in Congress has thus far declined to take a strong stand about whether they will follow this path. House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has deferred to Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top House Democrat on the appropriation committee, and Murray.

DeLauro has said that “Democrats will absolutely not fund Trump’s war of choice with Iran,” but has also said that a short-term CR is needed.

For his part, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said that Congress is “going to end the war” and “the power of the purse” is “one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people.” But he has stopped short of endorsing the plan advanced by Van Hollen, who is rumored to be a possible challenger to Schumer’s leadership of the caucus.

“Congressional Democrats have stood firm this year against any funding for the war, and the lame duck is a continuation of that basic position,” Abdi told RS. “There's no reason to suddenly let go of the rope now, right after a huge win and mandate.”