The escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly the strikes on Iran, are poised to dramatically reshape the political landscape in the United States, especially within the Democratic Party. But here’s where it gets controversial: these events are not just about foreign policy—they’re becoming a litmus test for candidates, forcing them to take a stand on issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict, AIPAC’s influence, and the broader implications of U.S. military actions abroad. And this is the part most people miss: the ripple effects of these decisions could determine the outcome of key primary races and even the 2028 presidential election.
Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders and executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, puts it bluntly: ‘Palestine has become a litmus test in the party.’ This was evident in recent primaries in Michigan and Illinois, where candidates were pressured to acknowledge the situation in Gaza as a genocide and to pledge not to accept donations from AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. With the strikes on Iran, these tensions are only intensifying. ‘This war will amplify it even more,’ Duss predicts.
AIPAC’s involvement in elections has already proven to be a game-changer. In Illinois, AIPAC-aligned groups have poured nearly $14 million into four House races ahead of the mid-March primary, upending campaigns and sparking fierce debates. Similarly, in North Carolina, the issue of Israel has dominated Democratic Rep. Valerie Foushee’s reelection bid. And in Michigan, a state with a significant Arab-American population, the three-way Democratic Senate race has been marked by sharp divisions over Israel. For months, operatives have been warning that AIPAC’s influence could tip the scales, potentially paving the way for a Republican victory in a traditionally Democratic stronghold.
Here’s where it gets even more contentious: Former Rep. Tom Malinowski, who lost a primary race after AIPAC spent over $2 million against him, warns that the strikes on Iran could backfire on the lobbying group. ‘The war accentuates the risk that AIPAC’s intervention will result in electing the most anti-war, anti-Israel progressive candidates,’ he says. Yet, AIPAC shows no signs of backing down. In a recent statement, the group praised the U.S.-led strikes as ‘decisive action against the terror-supporting regime in Iran.’ Their super PAC, United Democracy Project, boasts nearly $100 million in funds and plans to influence dozens of races this year, targeting both Democratic and Republican primaries.
‘Anti-Israel candidates should be on notice,’ warns Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for United Democracy Project. ‘Our goal is to elect the biggest possible bipartisan pro-Israel majority in Congress.’ But this stance has sparked a backlash. Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, argues that Democrats who accept AIPAC money will face a ‘reckoning.’ ‘How can they stand for peace when their billionaire backers are advocating for war?’ he asks.
While the strikes on Iran haven’t divided Democrats as deeply as the war in Gaza, they’ve still opened up fault lines within the party. Most Democrats blame Trump for escalating tensions in the Middle East, but there’s less consensus on how to move forward. Brian Romick, president of Democratic Majority for Israel, notes, ‘I don’t think anyone wants to be seen on the side of Iran, but Democrats are united in demanding that the president explain the strategy and endgame.’
And this is the part most people miss: the long-term implications of these strikes are still unknown. As Democratic strategist David Axelrod points out, ‘The longer and more costly the conflict, the deeper the debate will be.’ In Illinois, for instance, the strikes are expected to shift the focus from Israel and Gaza to a broader discussion about U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern wars. ‘This isn’t just about Israel and Gaza anymore,’ says an anonymous Illinois political consultant. ‘It’s about standing with Israel in a war with far-reaching ramifications.’
In one Illinois race, AIPAC-aligned groups have already spent over $1 million supporting state Sen. Laura Fine and attacking her opponent, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss. Biss has slammed Trump and Netanyahu for ‘pushing America into another reckless and illegal regime change war.’ Meanwhile, another AIPAC-linked group is targeting Kat Abughazaleh, a Palestinian American progressive candidate, who vows to make Iran a central issue in her campaign. ‘People care about this for a lot of reasons,’ she says, citing concerns about tax dollars, humanitarian implications, and the risk of a ‘forever war.’
The strikes on Iran have also created an interesting dynamic among AIPAC-backed candidates. While some, like Fine, have called for Trump’s impeachment, others have criticized the attacks as ‘reckless’ and ‘immoral.’ This divergence highlights the growing tension within the Democratic Party over foreign policy.
In North Carolina, Tuesday’s primaries will serve as an early test of how Democratic voters feel about Israel and the strikes on Iran. Rep. Valerie Foushee, who initially received AIPAC support, has since distanced herself from the group, stating, ‘Check my voting record to see how I’ve stood up for the people of Gaza.’ Her opponent, Nida Allam, has attacked Foushee for not being tough enough on Israel, and a new super PAC has spent heavily to support her campaign.
Here’s a thought-provoking question: As the Democratic Party grapples with these issues, will candidates who take a strong anti-war stance gain more traction, or will AIPAC’s influence continue to shape the narrative? The strikes on Iran have added a new layer of complexity to this debate, and the outcomes of these primary races could set the tone for the party’s future. What do you think? Is AIPAC’s involvement a necessary counterbalance, or is it undermining progressive voices within the party? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments.
