In the current tense atmosphere, what draws the most attention is not simply the possibility of war itself, but the Democrats’ restrained, controlled, and calculated response to it. A party that in its official rhetoric has consistently criticized military adventurism has this time neither raised a serious banner of opposition to a potential war against Iran nor appeared willing to actively engage in deterrence efforts. This behavior appears less the result of weakness or neglect than of a precise political calculation.

From the perspective of the U.S. Democratic Party, a war with Iran is not merely a security crisis but a self-made political trap—one that Donald Trump is completing with his own hands. Democrats neither seek to stop this path nor openly encourage it; instead, they prefer to let it reach its peak so that the costs fall directly on Trump and the Republican Party.

Logic of Silence: Why Democrats Do Not Object

Democrats understand well that a war with Iran—unlike many limited U.S. military interventions—would likely be neither short, nor inexpensive, nor easily controlled. Any conflict could lead to higher energy prices, increased domestic economic pressure, erosion of the government’s social capital, and even fractures within foreign alliances. From an electoral perspective, these consequences are precisely the factors that could shift the balance of power against Republicans in upcoming congressional elections.

Within this framework, active opposition to war carries two major risks for Democrats.

First, if war does not occur, Trump could portray himself as someone who “deterred the Iranian threat” and accuse Democrats of weakness. Second, if war does occur and Democrats had tried to block it from the outset, part of the responsibility for its consequences could fall on them.

Tactical silence therefore becomes the best option—a silence that allows Trump to proceed to the end of the path he himself initiated.

War as an Opportunity, Not an Objective

The key point is that Democrats do not regard war as a goal, but they do see it as a potential opportunity: an opportunity to undermine the narrative of “decisive leadership,” highlight the instability created by the president’s personal decision-making, and ultimately regain a congressional majority while activating oversight and legal mechanisms against the White House.

More precisely, Democrats believe that if Trump is going to fall, he should fall on his own ground—not through intervention and political rescue by his opponents.

Erosion of Trump’s Social Capital: Polling Evidence

Public opinion data in the United States suggest that a war-driven policy against Iran lacks social support, reinforcing Democratic calculations. A January Harvard CAPS/Harris poll shows that 71% of Americans oppose military action even in a hypothetical scenario described as a “strike in response to the repression of protesters.” This figure indicates that even emotional or human-rights-based framing has not succeeded in shifting public opinion toward war.

An Ipsos poll likewise states that a plurality of Americans believe the United States bears no responsibility to provide military support to anti-government protesters in Iran. These figures point to a strategic shift: the U.S. president has not only failed to build a global consensus against Iran but has also struggled to mobilize domestic public opinion.

American society, exhausted by the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, shows little desire to enter another crisis in West Asia—especially at a time when domestic economic concerns, social divisions, and a crisis of political trust are viewed as immediate priorities.

Reports indicate that Trump’s approval rating stands at 17%, a clear indicator of the erosion of his social and political capital. Under such conditions, any war would intensify this erosion and could turn it into a crisis of legitimacy.

Israel’s Role: Converging Functions, Not Unified Goals

In this context, the role of Israel and of Benjamin Netanyahu becomes especially important. Netanyahu has repeatedly and publicly stated that negotiations with Iran will not succeed and that demands should be set at a level that discredits any agreement in advance. This position stands in clear contrast to Trump’s rhetoric, which has at least verbally emphasized the possibility of reaching a deal.

This difference, however, does not imply a functional divergence. In practice, the effect of Netanyahu’s approach aligns with the Democrats’ electoral interests, even if the ultimate goals differ. Netanyahu seeks to prevent any agreement that would remove Iran from the status of an “immediate threat.” For him, the edge of war is preferable to an imperfect peace. Democrats, by contrast, seek for Trump to lose his balance precisely at that edge.

Trump: A Shared Instrument, Different Goals

Within this equation, Trump becomes the point of intersection between two strategies: for Israel, a tool to intensify pressure and burn the path to diplomacy; and for Democrats, a subject for political and electoral erosion.

By raising demands and undermining negotiations, Netanyahu places Trump in a dangerous dilemma: either a deal that will immediately be labeled a “failure,” or a move toward military confrontation. Democrats, while not the architects of this dilemma, do nothing to prevent it.

The Democrats’ lack of strong opposition to a potential war against Iran is therefore not the result of irresponsibility but of a cold political calculation. They see this path as a trap Trump has built for himself and prefer, rather than neutralizing it, to extract maximum advantage from its consequences. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s actions—though driven by different goals—simultaneously deepen the same trap.

The result is a situation in which war may be no one’s explicit objective, yet all actors—consciously or unconsciously—are moving toward it, with each believing that the final political collapse would serve their own interests.