Remarks by pro-Israel stalwarts Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Brad Schneider (D-IL) on a Jewish Democratic Council of America webinar on Wednesday highlighted the delicate line that some pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers are walking on the war in Iran.

Wasserman Schultz and Schneider, along with some of their Democratic colleagues, are longtime Iran hawks and have previously supported many of the stated aims of the war, but express deep skepticism of how the Trump administration is handling the operation and its decision not to seek congressional authorization. 

Both Democrats voted for a war powers resolution last week that sought to bring an immediate halt to the war.

Wasserman Schultz said that, in addition to legal and constitutional concerns, Trump made a “colossally stupid” decision in not coming to Congress because some lawmakers, including her, might have voted to support an operation against Iran if presented with the proper intelligence and a clear plan.

“I can tell you assuredly: had I been presented with an Authorization for Use of Military Force, that made sense, and that we were properly briefed, and there was a demonstrative, imminent threat — which we have really yet to be shown — I am someone on our side of the aisle that likely would have voted for an AUMF if all of those things were in place,” Wasserman Schultz said. “Instead, [President Donald Trump] has blown an opportunity to go in in the most prepared way.”

By sidestepping Congress, the administration left the U.S. unprepared for the implications and blowback from the war, Wasserman Schultz said, highlighting, among other issues, the administration’s failure to evacuate American citizens from the region before the war started.

“I am so frustrated because I think everyone on this call knows how dangerous, deeply evil Iran is as a regime,” Wasserman Schultz said. “I have been careful about just blanket-ly condemning everything [Trump is] doing here, but most certainly, the way that we got into this was really unacceptable, and my constituents are very concerned.”

While Wasserman Schultz said she supported diplomacy with Iran, she also expressed skepticism about its chances for success, explaining that the Iranian regime would likely have sought to string the U.S. along until Trump left office, buying time to continue building its nuclear and missile programs.

Schneider said he believes strongly that the U.S. needs to address the threat from Iran, as well “help the people of Iran free themselves” from the regime, but added that “the Constitution is clear” that only Congress can declare war, and the administration has still not clearly identified an imminent threat that would have allowed it to legally take action unilaterally. He also said he does not trust the administration to properly carry through the mission without oversight.

“We can agree on the objectives in confronting Iran. We have no idea what the goals of this war are, or the strategy for achieving those goals, or the endgame that is trying to be ultimately accomplished that would bring the war to an end,” Schneider said. “My biggest fear is Trump … declares victory and goes home with Iran’s regime still in place, the nuclear program not completely defeated, [the] ballistic missile program damaged but not eliminated.”

He said that he’s afraid that, if the administration doesn’t set clear objectives, it will stop the war prematurely and ultimately leave the Iranian regime “more entrenched, feeling more powerful.”

The Illinois congressman speculated that Iranian leadership, by gathering in one central location, could have “present[ed] an opportunity that was too good to pass up” in launching the war but said that the administration still hasn’t properly articulated to lawmakers its thinking and strategy, so he does not know if that is the case.

Schneider said that an ideal outcome would require removing Iran’s enriched uranium from the country, which would necessitate international inspectors and a diplomatic settlement.

“There is no military solution to get us where we ultimately need to be. It has to be a political solution,” he said. “The military action always needed to be on the table to help us achieve that political solution. But with this President, I think it’s more ready, fire, aim, as opposed to ready, aim, fire.”

Schneider also called for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to be removed from his job, saying Hegseth has failed to prepare for easily anticipated Iranian responses like mining the Strait of Hormuz, or to ensure proper oversight to prevent civilian casualties.

Wasserman Schultz said that she would consider a supplemental funding request if and when the administration presents one, emphasizing that she wants to ensure U.S. troops have the resources they need because “it’s not their choice to be there,” even if she doesn’t fully agree with the administration’s approach.

Wasserman Schultz added that she’s concerned that the war is “compromising our ability” to protect the U.S. from Russia and China.

Asked about a supplemental request, Schneider emphasized that U.S. servicemembers have his strong support and are “doing their job, they’re succeeding, and we should all pray for the success of their mission and their safe return.”

But he said he’s disappointed with the political leadership in the administration, particularly its distribution of online videos intermixing footage from the war with movie clips and video games, even as U.S. servicemembers have been killed and injured. “No one should take glee in the killing of the enemy. It is a necessary act that is advancing our interests.”

JDCA itself also seems to be striking a delicate balance.

The group’s CEO Halie Soifer said JDCA agrees with the need to stop Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, but emphasized that Trump is going around Congress and that, while some Democrats might “support, perhaps, some of the short-term tactical gains” some also “believe the administration is lacking a long-term strategy for success in Iran.”

Schneider and Wasserman Schultz were also critical of comments by Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggesting that Israel had effectively dragged the U.S. into the war. Rubio has said those comments were mischaracterized. Both criticized that framing of the conflict as incorrect and as potential fodder for increased antisemitism.

“The president said it himself: He was not compelled, he may have compelled Israel,” Schneider said. 

But he added, “in the end, it doesn’t really matter,” predicting a similar rise in antisemitism as occurred around the 1973 Yom Kippur War — launched by Egypt — when people in the U.S. blamed Jews and Israel for rising gas prices.

“Because this administration did not have that conversation with Congress and, through Congress, with the American people, people are going to look for scapegoats,” he said. “And when folks are looking for scapegoats, Jews are almost always one of those targets.”

Wasserman Schultz said that Rubio’s comments were “unbelievable” and “dangerous.”

“It is incredibly dangerous for Jews worldwide, and … unacceptable for him to have basically set it up that, ‘Well, we had to do this because it’s the Jews’ fault,’” Wasserman Schultz said. “Once it’s said, the impact — it remains.”

Speaking broadly, she said that the picture presented to lawmakers in a classified setting was “more subtle.”

A group of six moderate House Democrats introduced an alternative war powers resolution on Iran, which — rather than demanding an immediate end to the ongoing U.S. operation — would give the administration 30 days in which to either end the campaign or come to Congress to seek approval for continued strikes.

The resolution is sponsored by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Jared Golden (D-ME) and Jim Costa (D-CA). It signals concern from the group of hawkish pro-Israel House Democrats about the efforts by their colleagues to demand an immediate end to operations in Iran, though at least some of the sponsors of the resolution still plan to vote for the existing war powers resolution this week as well.

“Iran is actively firing drones and ballistic missiles at U.S. troops, our embassies, allies, and is targeting civilians across the region,” Gottheimer said on X on Tuesday. “This new Democratic War Powers Resolution will uphold Congress’s constitutional authority — while also ensuring the U.S. can defend our troops, embassies, and allies from Iranian aggression.”

Landsman said that the resolution “allows for the short-term, targeted strikes on the regime’s missiles and bombs, requires Trump to come to Congress for a vote, and specifies ‘no ground troops.’ Destroy the [regime’s] ability to destroy more lives or cause any more mayhem or violence. Nothing more.”

In a press release, Gottheimer’s office pointed to concerns that the resolution led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), which is set to receive a House vote this week, would pull out U.S. forces even as Iran is targeting U.S. troops, assets, facilities and allies. “It is vital that we allow for a safe transition, that protects our service members, embassies, and allies, not a potentially precarious withdrawal,” the statement reads.

Lawmakers supporting the war powers resolutions in both chambers have largely not articulated what an immediate end to the war would entail or the potential consequences of abruptly pulling out U.S. forces.

The new resolution includes specific language forbidding the administration from deploying ground troops into Iran “in a combat role, including for regime change, or for occupation unless explicitly authorized by Congress,” but includes an exception for search and rescue and intelligence operations.

Gottheimer’s press release argues that an “open-ended commitment” and a potential commitment of ground troops would both be “unacceptable,” while also warning that “it is equally unwise to act in a precipitous way and endanger America’s security and put our service members in additional harm’s way.”

The Gottheimer-led resolution also contains language that would allow the U.S. to continue to defend its facilities, personnel and allies from “imminent attack;” keep forces in the region “for defensive purposes” and who are engaged in other missions and continue sharing intelligence with partners.

The war powers resolution that is set to receive a House vote later this week does not include similar language to specifically allow for continued intelligence sharing and defensive operations protecting allies, which could raise concerns for pro-Israel Democrats.

The Senate version of the resolution does include such protections.

While Gottheimer and Landsman have said they oppose the Massie-Khanna resolution, Panetta said on Tuesday that he would support it, despite also backing the Gottheimer resolution.

“The President has not abided by our Constitution when it comes to invading foreign sovereign states,” Panetta said in a statement. “That is why Congress must fulfill our obligations under the constitution by supporting this week’s bipartisan War Powers Resolution.”

Asked about the Gottheimer resolution, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, emphasized that the Massie-Khanna legislation will be coming to the floor on Wednesday. “That’s the one we have. This is continuing right now. We need to vote on this resolution tomorrow. I’m not considering any other [resolution].”

Jeremy Bash, a former chief of staff at the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency under the Obama administration, told JI that the Khanna-Massie resolution is reckless.

“We have U.S. servicemembers in harm’s way. Some are flying combat sorties as we speak. We can’t call them in the cockpit and say ‘Congress has prohibited you from completing this mission. Please turn around and stop what you’re doing.’ If that sounds a little strange, it is because the Ro Khanna resolution requires that very strange outcome,” Bash said. “An immediate withdrawal is dangerous for our troops. Any pullback needs to be orderly and safe. We need to give the combatant commander at least a few weeks to do this safely.”

He said that Congress can and should be involved in debating the war and providing oversight, but “for a war powers resolution to be credible, it has to build in several days for the commanders to act responsibly to protect their troops. This cannot be done immediately.”

Bash called Gottheimer’s resolution a “very sensible alternative that will protect our troops.”

Daniel Silverberg, a former advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), emphasized that a similar effort to cut off the U.S.’ Libya operations led by “one of the most ardent anti-war activists in the House,” then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), included a 15-day wind-down provision. 

“The Massie-Khanna resolution lacks it. The notion that Democrats would not, at a minimum, support that amendment to allow for a responsible withdrawal of forces is problematic from a national security perspective and from a messaging perspective,” Silverberg said.

Amb. Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and senior State and Defense Department official, said that the resolution could serve as a “fallback” if the Massie-Khanna resolution fails, one which might have a chance of attracting GOP support.

“The 30 day clock … arguably addresses a concern that some members might have about troops who are actively engaged and in the field, and would need some window of time … to wind down and safely conclude operations,” Shapiro said.