NJ DEMS SEND MIXED MESSAGES ON TRUMP’S IRAN WAR

But Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman nails it, calling it “reckless” and “an act of war against a country that posed no imminent threat to our people.”

Rep. Watson Coleman at a town hall earlier this year.

Donald Trump’s unilateral war with Iran is not only reckless and criminally misguided, it’s also highly unpopular with Americans of all persuasions. So why is it so difficult for so many New Jersey Democratic politicians to say so?

Even before Trump ordered the attack on Saturday, polls showed that substantial majorities of the American public didn’t want the United States to get involved in the Israel-Iran war. An Economist/YouGov poll taken last week revealed that Americans supported negotiations over war and reported that Americans oppose involving the U.S. military by a huge majority of 60 to 16 percent. And more recent polling, since the U.S. attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities, shows that an overwhelming majority of Democrats – along with many MAGA Republicans, who may have believed Trump when he campaigned as an anti-war candidate – are against the attacks. Reported The Independent:

85 percent of American adults said they do not want war with Iran, including 92 percent of all Democrats, 83 percent of independents and 80 percent of Republicans in opposition.

Polls may change, and they surely will, but we expect our representatives in Congress and other elected officials to do and say the right thing, popular or not. A review of statements by some New Jersey politicians shows that that’s not always true.

One who spoke out forcefully was Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, whose statement minced no words:

The United States has just committed an act of war against a country that posed no imminent threat to our people. There was no self-defense or tactical strategy taken into account. Just the reckless action of a man who has never understood or respected the responsibilities of American leadership.

This war was provoked by Benjamin Netanyahu for his own political survival, and Donald Trump has willingly handed him American military power to prolong it. The United States is not anyone’s proxy army, and our troops are not bargaining chips. Donald Trump's actions have put our troops in the region in significant danger.

You can read her whole statement here. It’s similar in power to Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) statement, who called the war “idiotic.” He noted that Americans “overwhelmingly” oppose the war, adding, “I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.”

Let’s compare that to the statement from Rep. Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic candidate for governor in November. Sherrill took the path that a fair number of cautious Congressional Democrats did, preferring to focus not on how wrong the war itself is but instead on the fact that Trump didn’t consult with Congress. She said that she was “grateful to learn that no U.S. service members were harmed,” adding:

I am deeply concerned by President Trump’s decision to order these strikes tonight without first seeking legal authorization from Congress, as required by the Constitution. This constitutional requirement ensures Congress has the ability to weigh the proposed plan, the potential cost and danger to service members, and whether it is the best path forward to achieve our long-term goals. This is especially important given the poor decision making that led to twenty years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan without advancing the goals of the United States and our allies.

Sherrill’s calibrated moderation, in line with the tone of her campaign in the gubernatorial primary, stands in sharp contrast to one of her rivals in that campaign, Rep. Josh Gottheimer. His statement was downright jingoistic:

Tonight, the United States took critical and decisive action to protect America, and freedom and democracy at home and around the world — stopping Iran’s nuclear program in its tracks … Their Fordow nuclear facility was key to the success of their nuclear program. Thanks to American might and leadership, it now sits in ruins. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is essential to ultimate peace in the Middle East.

Perhaps Gottheimer’s rhetoric is expected, given that he’s been one of the leading recipients of campaign cash from AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington. But The New Jersey Democrat should point out that his assertion that deep-buried installation at Fordow “sits in ruins” has not yet been confirmed by bomb-damage assessments.

And our two U.S. senators? Andy Kim, elected in 2024, issued a lengthy and thoughtful thread on X immediately after the U.S. bombing. While he stopped short of condemning that U.S. action outright, he made the critical point that “even if these strikes destroyed these sites, Iran may still have enriched material and can restart its program or race toward a bomb.” Indeed, many experts say that after the joint U.S.-Israeli attacks, Tehran is likely to conclude that it must quietly rebuild its program and, this time, seek a North Korea-style nuclear arsenal. Until now, Iran has built a substantial uranium enrichment program, but according to both the U.S. intelligence community and the IAEA, it has not moved forward with a weapons program. (In other words, Iran has not have the bomb, and it has not started to make one.)

Added Kim:

We need to know: What is Trump's plan for what comes next? What is the broader strategy to achieve a lasting peace in the region? What are the implications of this action for other U.S. interests, including our ability to deter China in the Indo-Pacific or the North Koreans from threatening Seoul? DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A SAY? What authorities is the administration claiming to use for this operation, given that there was no Congressional authorization and this was not a matter of self-defense? Why did the administration deem this was necessary, and why was it necessary before making the case to Congress?

Kim’s right to raise the question: Why now? But, like Sherrill, he couldn’t quite bring himself to say, like his colleague, Sen. Kaine, that the war is “idiotic,” nor could he join Rep. Watson Coleman in saying that Trump was “reckless” and that he “committed an act of war against a country that posed no imminent threat to our people.”

Sen. Cory Booker edged close to an unmistakable denunciation of the war, but he never quite got there in his lengthy statement, which included this:

President Trump’s decision to strike Iran is a consequential, dangerous gamble. He has put American lives at risk, particularly servicemembers in the region; increased the likelihood of Iranian attacks against the US; and dramatically heightened the danger of an expanded US military entanglement potentially pulling us into another protracted conflict in the Middle East

And Booker correctly pointed out that despite Trump’s “boasts of ‘completely and totally obliterating’” Iran’s nuclear program, there’s no such evidence that those claims are true, despite the substantial damage that has been revealed in satellite images so far.

Attacking another sovereign nation is a violation of international law. Case in point: Russia’s unprovoked, unilateral attack on Ukraine. The same can be said for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which would have been illegal even if Iraq had a WMD program (though it didn’t). Sending B2 bombers laden with 30,000-pound super-bombs – the largest weapons in the U.S. arsenal other than nuclear bombs – is, by definition, illegal under international law and, in the view of many scholars, unconstitutional as well, since the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, with the power to take the country to war. The GOP, mesmerized by MAGA, may find it hard to break ranks with a revenge-minded president. Democrats, however, ought to be able to agree that war with Iran is, well, wrong.