There is an old rule in democratic societies: when a nation goes to war, the political arguments at home do not disappear-but they are restrained by a basic understanding that rooting for your country to fail is beyond the pale.
That line now appears to have been crossed in the USA.
Many Democratic leaders in Washington seem so consumed by their hostility toward Donald Trump that they are unable-or unwilling-to support an American military effort against Iran. The intensity of their opposition sometimes goes beyond policy disagreement and drifts into something darker: the open expectation, and perhaps even hope, that the campaign will fail.
When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was asked about the campaign, he predicted that the United States would fail. Perhaps he intended it as political analysis. But in the middle of a war, such statements sound less like analysis and more like wishful thinking.
What kind of national leadership predicts defeat while its own military is fighting?
Opposing a war is legitimate in a democracy. But undermining a war once it has begun-while soldiers are already risking their lives-is something entirely different.
History offers many examples of political debate during wartime. But even the fiercest critics during World War II or the Cold War generally understood one basic principle: you do not cheer for your country’s failure simply because you dislike the president leading it.
Today that principle seems to be disappearing.
The Apartheid Fantasy
At the same time, the rhetoric directed against Israel by some prominent Democratic figures has become increasingly detached from reality.
Recently, California Governor Gavin Newsom described Israel as an “apartheid state."
I already knew that Newsom was not exactly a towering intellectual figure. But until recently I did not realize that apartheid apparently allows members of the supposedly “inferior" population to do the following:
- Serve as judges on the country’s Supreme Court.
- Sit in the national parliament.
- Vote in national elections.
- Form political parties.
- Participate in governing coalitions.
- Teach at universities.
- Practice medicine in major hospitals.
- Serve in the police and military.
- Enroll in universities in large numbers.
- Lead major businesses and academic institutions.
Apparently, in Newsom’s version of apartheid, the oppressed minority votes, governs, judges, teaches, practices medicine, and helps run the country.
The architects of South African apartheid would have found this interpretation rather surprising.
Calling Israel an "apartheid state" is not merely incorrect. It is a mixture of ignorance, ideological distortion, and political opportunism.
Israel Is Not a Bystander
The confrontation with Iran is not simply an American campaign taking place somewhere in the Middle East.
Israel is not a spectator in this struggle. Israel is the primary target of Iran’s declared ambitions and the first line of defense against them.
For decades the Iranian regime has openly called for Israel’s destruction while building the capabilities to make that threat real-nuclear enrichment, ballistic missiles, and a network of heavily armed proxy organizations surrounding Israel’s borders.
From Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas in Gaza and militias across Syria and Iraq, Iran has spent years constructing a military "ring of fire" around the Jewish state.
Israel has therefore been confronting the Iranian threat long before it became the focus of Washington’s attention.
In this sense, the current confrontation is not simply America defending its interests abroad. It is a strategic partnership between the United States and Israel confronting a regime that threatens both.
A Rare Voice of Sanity
Not every Democrat has followed the path of reflexive opposition. One notable exception is John Fetterman.
Fetterman has repeatedly shown the courage to place national interest above party loyalty. He has strongly supported Israel after terrorist attacks, condemned antisemitism spreading across American campuses, and criticized radical elements within his own political coalition.
He has also supported decisive action against Iran’s regime, recognizing that the danger posed by Tehran transcends partisan politics.
In today’s political climate, such clarity is rare.
The Iranian Tsunami
The danger posed by Iran is not theoretical. During recent negotiations, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff revealed alarming details of Iran’s nuclear progress. Iranian officials openly boasted that they already possess enough enriched uranium for multiple nuclear weapons.
Even more troubling, they indicated that they have no intention of abandoning either their uranium enrichment program or their ballistic missile program.
Those two programs together form the core of a nuclear weapons capability.
- Iran already finances terrorist organizations across the region.
- It attacks international shipping lanes.
- It targets American forces.
- It surrounds Israel with heavily armed proxies.
Give that regime nuclear weapons and the threat multiplies dramatically.
With its advancing missile technology, Iran could soon threaten not only Israel but all of Europe-and eventually the United States itself.
Yet many critics chose to ignore this approaching tsunami.
From the beachfront, the water still looked calm.
But anyone watching from above-from the vantage point of intelligence and strategic analysis-could already see the massive wave forming far out at sea.
The birds could see it. Many politicians chose not to.
A Warning for Israel as Well
There is also a lesson here for Israelis.
Internal political divisions are a natural part of democracy. Israel, like the United States, has experienced intense political polarization in recent years-much of it centered on hostility toward Benjamin Netanyahu.
Criticizing a leader is legitimate. Democracies thrive on debate.
But when political hatred becomes so intense that some people begin to prioritize the defeat of their own government over the success of their country in a moment of existential danger, the line between healthy opposition and self-destructive partisanship begins to blur.
America is now struggling with that danger.
Israel would be wise not to repeat the same mistake. So far, Israel's left and right have joined ranks to support the war.
History’s Judgment
History rarely judges such moments kindly.
When Winston Churchill warned about the rising danger of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, many politicians dismissed him as alarmist. They preferred comforting illusions to uncomfortable realities.
We know how that ended.
Today the world faces another regime openly declaring hostile ambitions while building the capabilities to carry them out.
The warning signs are visible. The danger is real.
The question is whether political leaders-and voters-will recognize it before it is too late.
Because if America’s enemies ever manage to defeat the United States-or Israel-they will not need to conquer them from the outside.
Those nations will have weakened themselves from within.
And history will record that tragedy with a single word.
Shame.
Dr. Avi Perry is a former professor at Northwestern University and a former researcher and executive at Bell Labs. He served as Vice President at NMS Communications and represented the United States on the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Standards Committee, where he authored significant portions of the G.168 standard. He is the author of the thriller novel “72 VIRGINS", and of a book published by Cambridge University Press about voice quality in wireless networks titled “Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks." More recently, he published “Unlocked: A Practical Guide to Learning and Applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Solve Real-World Problems" as well as “A Winner’s Playbook: How to Win by Spotting and Using the Rules Governing Human Behavior." He is also a regular op-ed contributor to The Jerusalem Post and Israel National News.