In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
Posted by Joshua Scheer
Do Hakeem Jeffries and other leading Democrats truly oppose the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran — or are they quietly aligned with it, preferring that Donald Trump take the political risk of carrying it out?
That’s the question raised by Ryan Grim of Drop Site News in a recent appearance on Dispatches, hosted by Rania Khalek on BreakThrough News.
Grim argues that while Democratic leaders publicly warn that Trump is acting “recklessly” in escalating military action against Iran, many in the party do not fundamentally oppose U.S. strikes — or even the long-standing goal of regime change in Tehran. What they understand, he suggests, is that a broader war is deeply unpopular with the American public.
That political reality may explain why Democratic leadership did not aggressively push a War Powers resolution before the bombing campaign began, allowing any meaningful congressional challenge to stall until after the strikes were already underway. Publicly, party leaders call for briefings and demand answers. Privately, according to Grim, they may see a political win-win: if the war spirals or results in U.S. casualties, Trump bears the blame.
⭕️ Ryan Grim on Democrats’ cynical political calculations
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 1, 2026
Grim argues that many Democrats quietly support US strikes on Iran and even regime change, but understand a broader war is deeply unpopular. He says that helps explain why party leaders did not advance a War Powers vote… pic.twitter.com/0pMSGMCIar
However, a recent clip on CNN appeared to underscore the point — bringing into the open what Grimm said that many Democrats have long expressed more quietly. With Senator Tammy Duckworth stating bluntly, “I’m glad that Khamenei is dead … My problem with this whole thing is how President Trump has gone about doing this.”
Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth: "I'm glad that Khamenei is dead … My problem with this whole thing is how President Trump has gone about doing this." pic.twitter.com/L7TDK0UcAz
— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) February 28, 2026
he remark is clearly saying the quiet part out loud and showing how empire‑loving and callous the Democrats are, with the only objection being less about the objective — the elimination of Iranian leadership — than about process, authorization, and political management.
Jeffries added his own blunt assessment of the killing and the political fallout in speaking with NPR: “I’m not going to shed any tears over his death. He brutalized his own people and built an Iran that is the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. But what comes next is unclear, because the Trump administration has yet to articulate any plan to ensure U.S. forces aren’t dragged into another forever war in the Middle East.”
Adding for good measure and clearly underscoring Grimm’s point Jeffries saying: “Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support for terrorism, and the threat it poses to allies like Israel and Jordan. However, absent exigent circumstances, the Trump administration must seek authorization for any preemptive use of military force that would constitute an act of war.” Again, saying out loud that this was about the political calculus and timing of the war, and the way it has been handled — not about the actual murder and attack on a sovereign nation.
The debate in Washington is not between war and peace, but between competing strategies for executing — and politically surviving — the same war.
What emerges is a portrait of a political class that treats war not as a last resort but as a managed variable—something to be timed, framed, and delegated to whichever branch of government is most willing to absorb the blowback. The question is no longer whether Washington will pursue confrontation with Iran, but which faction prefers to let the other take the heat for it.
In that sense, the bipartisan choreography around these strikes reveals something deeper than tactical disagreement. It exposes a consensus that the United States retains the right to decide the fate of another nation, paired with a quiet hope—on both sides—that someone else will pay the political price for exercising that power.
And so the debate narrows to a grim calculus: not should the United States escalate, but who will be left holding the match when the fire spreads. The tragedy is that the people who will bear the real cost—Iranians, American service members, and civilians across the region—have no seat at the table where these risks are being traded like chips in an election‑year wager, as if we should care about elections anymore.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.