Democrats Strike Oppositional Pose to the Iran War

The Canadian government “supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” The Australian government also backs “the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

These two liberal governments, at least, support both the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian targets and, apparently, their objective: regime change.

Closer to home, however, Democrats have adopted a more defiant posture:

It would be healthy if Congress were a jealous steward of its constitutional prerogatives, and the president should have sought additional consultation from the legislature in advance of this fraught national project. I’m less troubled by the legal rationale for these strikes (we’ve been debating for decades whether the 2001 AUMF clears the necessary hurdles), but I don’t begrudge those who don’t. It’s an arguable proposition.

But that’s not Tim Kaine’s position. His objection is to “this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action.” If that immeasurably stupid geopolitical project ends in something short of U.S.-Israeli objectives — a stalemate or chaos accompanied by U.S. casualties — the American people may also arrive at Kaine’s conclusion.

But if this action is successful and the Islamic Republic — its edifice historically weakened as a consequence of its own military and administrative blunders — collapses amid the rejoicing of the Iranian people, Kaine may regret those words.

Update: New Jersey’s Senator Andy Kim echoed Kaine’s comments. Opposition to both Trump’s tactics and strategic goal of this war is the emerging party line: