Democrats Criticized for Opposing Iran War Efforts

Bipartisan support for military action against Iran's nuclear program has eroded, drawing criticism.

Mar. 14, 2026 at 12:51am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The editorial board of the New York Post criticizes Democrats, including some centrist senators, for opposing the Trump administration's efforts to confront Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional aggression. The piece argues that the Democrats' attacks on the military action are a 'disgrace' and that they are failing to unite behind the troops during a time of conflict, unlike in the past.

Why it matters

The lack of bipartisan support for confronting the Iranian threat raises concerns about the United States' ability to effectively address this national security challenge. The division could undermine the administration's efforts and embolden Iran to continue its destabilizing activities in the Middle East.

The details

The editorial board singles out figures like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, who has been critical of the joint U.S.-Israeli efforts to disable Iran's nuclear program. It also calls out Democratic senators like Chris Murphy, Chris Van Hollen, and even Chuck Schumer for questioning the scope and immediacy of the Iranian threat, despite acknowledging the need to confront Iran's 'malign regional activities' and 'nuclear ambitions'.

  • The U.S. and Israel took out Iran's nuclear program last year, just weeks before it could produce usable weapons.
  • The 2015 Iran nuclear deal, championed by the Obama administration, lifted sanctions on Iran and provided it with billions of dollars, which the regime then used to fund its regional proxies and bolster the Assad regime in Syria.

The players

Jeffrey Goldberg

The editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who has been critical of the joint U.S.-Israeli efforts to disable Iran's nuclear program.

Barack Obama

The former U.S. president whose administration negotiated the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which the editorial board argues failed to effectively address Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional aggression.

Chuck Schumer

The Democratic senator from New York who acknowledges the need to confront Iran's 'malign regional activities' and 'nuclear ambitions', but has questioned the administration's justification for military action.

Ilhan Omar

A Democratic representative who the editorial board describes as a 'radical' for opposing the administration's efforts against Iran.

Rashida Tlaib

A Democratic representative who the editorial board also describes as a 'radical' for opposing the administration's efforts against Iran.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Both Washington and Jerusalem are making claims about 'imminent' threats that require 'preemptive' strikes, but we should dispense with such statements: Iran is not presenting immediate danger to the United States or Israel.”

— Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor-in-Chief, The Atlantic

“the fact that the supreme leader is antisemitic doesn't mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”

— Barack Obama

“confronting Iran's malign regional activities, nuclear ambitions, and harsh oppression of the Iranian people demands American strength,”

— Chuck Schumer, U.S. Senator from New York

What’s next

The editorial board argues that the lack of bipartisan support for confronting Iran could undermine the administration's efforts and embolden Iran to continue its destabilizing activities in the Middle East.

The takeaway

The editorial board's criticism of Democrats for opposing the administration's efforts against Iran's nuclear program and regional aggression highlights the partisan divide on national security issues, which could have serious implications for America's ability to effectively address this critical threat.