They fought in Iraq. Now they’re the Democrats’ loudest voices against the war in Iran.

(CNN) — Rep. Eugene Vindman is among a generation of young Democrats who ran for Congress, in part, because of their experience fighting a forever war in the Middle East.

These Democrats are some of the earliest and most vocal critics of President Donald Trump’s decision to enter the US into war with Iran — a view that puts them at odds with some of the more interventionist members of their party.

“I will not be shedding a tear for the Iranian regime and the Ayatollah. I understand the threat but I also understand that wars are easy to start and hard to finish,” Vindman, a 25-year Army veteran, said Wednesday morning outside the US Capitol, standing shoulder to shoulder with a half-dozen fellow Democratic veterans. “This is a commitment of American blood and treasure to a conflict that we didn’t need to be engaged in.”

“When elites in Washington bang the war drums, pound their chest, talk about the costs of war and act tough, they’re not talking about them doing it,” added Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, who served three tours in Iraq.

Party leaders, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are amplifying those voices as Democrats seek to navigate the fallout from the quickly escalating war. While Vindman and his fellow Democratic veterans know they have little chance of blocking Trump’s actions in the GOP-led Congress, they’re trying to speak to a skeptical American public – arguing that the Trump administration has betrayed a core promise with the midterms just months away.

But it’s a difficult line for Democrats to walk. Party leaders are navigating sharp divisions within their ranks, particularly among a pro-Israel bloc that is expected to defy leadership in a key House vote on Thursday that will attempt to curb Trump’s military powers overseas. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, opposed a similar vote in the Senate on Wednesday – the only Democrat to do so.

For now, most Democrats are firmly condemning Trump’s decision to strike Iran without first seeking congressional approval. But the party will also soon be forced to contend with the reality of supporting US troops in the conflict in Iran, including questions about whether to spend billions of dollars more to shore up US operations.

Party leaders are eager not to repeat history and sow divisions that plagued them over the Iraq war more than 20 years ago. They also know it is just the beginning of a conflict that could go on for weeks, if not months or even longer, that will test Democrats’ ability to stay united.

In a closed-door meeting Tuesday night, Jeffries met with a bloc of roughly a half-dozen pro-Israel Democrats to make his case for backing the war powers measure, spending nearly an hour hearing the opposition from his fellow members, according to two people familiar with the meeting

But that meeting ended without a commitment from those members to get in line behind the measure.

“It didn’t change my mind,” Rep. Greg Landsman, who was one of those who attended the meeting, told CNN.

Hours earlier, Landsman offered a surprisingly supportive assessment of the administration’s initial strikes in Iran, and vowed to oppose the bipartisan resolution to curb the president’s use of force in the country absent congressional approval, which he said could hamstring the military’s work abroad.

“I’m more of a country-first guy, so whatever I think is best for the country and for my constituents, for the district, in this case, national security. To me, this was a no brainer. They had a window of opportunity to take out very specific military assets in order to defang the Iranian regime. We will be safer as a result,” Landsman said, though adding that Congress should have a say if the Iranian conflict “goes beyond” its current aims.

Across the Capitol, Fetterman has gone even further, accusing his party of silencing their support for Trump’s operation because they’re “afraid” of the base.

“Why can’t we all just say, ‘The world is safer’?” Fetterman told reporters, when asked about most Democrats’ opposition of the strikes. “Why can’t you just acknowledge the most evil people on the face of the earth were erased?”

The views of Landsman and Fetterman, however, contrast starkly from many of their colleagues, including the bloc of national security Democrats who have argued Trump’s move makes the country dramatically less safe without considering the costs to US troops.

“If I hear one more chicken hawk who’s never served a single day in uniform sitting in a gold plated office in DC or Mar-a-lago or anywhere else, try to talk tough having never seen what war is about, I’m going to lose my mind,” New York Democrat Rep. Pat Ryan, a combat veteran who was deployed twice to Iraq.

Ryan is among the group of Democrats, mostly in their 40s, who were deployed throughout Iraq and Afghanistan in the roughly 25 years that the US had troops there. Vindman, who deployed to Iraq, served as an infantry officer, paratrooper and as a military lawyer. His twin brother, Alex, was wounded in an IED attack in Iraq by an “Iranian manufactured” projectile, Vindman said Wednesday.

Democratic leaders firmly dispute Fetterman’s accusations that they are pandering to a liberal base.

Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, warned Democrats should be careful not to overthink the politics of this.

“I think this is a strategic mistake in the geopolitical sense, I think it’s morally questionable and it’s politically incredibly unpopular, so don’t outsmart yourself,” he said generally about Democrats who are on the fence about the war powers resolution.

But the fight over war powers is just the beginning. It is one thing for Democrats to stay united on a question of whether Congress should have more say over initiating a conflict with Iran in the first place, it is an entirely different question for Democrats to confront the reality that a prolonged battle in Iran may force them to contend with bigger questions over supplying US forces in the region.

Already, there is a signal that Congress may need to pass legislation in the coming weeks or months to provide more funding and weapons to at the very least restock diminished ammunitions used in the conflict so far. That question could further divide Democrats just months before the midterm elections.

“I want to make sure our service members and US citizens in the region are protected to the extent we could possibly do that,” Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona and veteran said. “We gotta be able to protect our troops and there are a lot of people in harm’s way right now so we will take a close look at what they propose.”

Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq, said he will have to look at any supplemental funding request closely but contends it is a difficult question for lawmakers and veterans in particular. On Saturday morning when Gallego saw the news of the attack in Iran, he had one thought: “Here we go again.”

“There is one side of me that wants to make sure that all the equipment our troops need to be protected is there, at the same time funding a war of choice for $50 billion when there is already a trillion dollar budget when they have already added another $175 billion to the DHS budget, it makes it very difficult,” he said.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.