North Carolina voters will head to the polls Tuesday as a series of primary elections begin to test the Democratic Party’s response to President Donald Trump’s recent military strikes against Iran. Even as many Democratic leaders have focused criticism on the process surrounding Trump’s decision to launch the attacks – specifically, the lack of congressional approval – a growing number of candidates are directly challenging the wisdom of the war itself, and the party’s reliance on pro-Israel lobbying groups that supported the action.
The most prominent early test will come in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District, where incumbent Rep. Valerie Foushee is facing a challenge from Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam. Allam has made opposition to the war, and to the influence of groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a central theme of her campaign. In a final campaign ad, Allam condemned the strikes and pledged to remain independent of both defense contractors and the “pro-Israel lobby.” Reuters/Ipsos polling conducted over the weekend found that only 27 percent of Americans and 7 percent of Democrats approve of the attacks.
Foushee, while also stating her opposition to the war, has faced scrutiny over past support from AIPAC, which provided crucial assistance during her 2022 race. She has publicly disavowed direct support from the organization this election cycle, but a group with ties to an AIPAC donor continues to run advertisements on her behalf. This dynamic reflects a broader tension within the Democratic Party, as progressive candidates increasingly challenge the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups.
The debate extends beyond North Carolina. In Illinois’ 9th Congressional District, State Sen. Laura Fine, who has received backing from AIPAC donors and previously supported Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, has framed her response to the recent attacks by criticizing Trump’s leadership. “Donald Trump is leading us into another military conflict to distract from his own failures that puts American lives at risk and threatens to send the Middle East into further chaos,” she said. Meanwhile, progressive challengers Daniel Biss and Kat Abughazaleh have directly opposed the war, with Abughazaleh, a social media influencer, criticizing lawmakers willing to support the strikes. Al Jazeera reports that the Illinois primary will serve as a test of voters’ appetite for candidates directly opposing the conflict.
Even in Maine, where Governor Janet Mills criticized Trump’s “unilateral” decision to proceed to war, a challenge from Marine combat veteran Graham Platner, who called the war “tragic, stupid, ill-conceived,” highlights the growing anti-war sentiment within the party.
While a few Democrats, such as Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, have publicly supported the war, the broader response from party leadership has been more cautious. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have criticized Trump’s lack of congressional authorization, but have stopped short of directly condemning the attacks themselves. Schumer, in particular, invoked concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and the potential for a prolonged conflict. The Intercept notes that this approach allows Democratic leaders to focus on Trump’s constitutional overreach rather than the underlying merits of the war.
J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group, has urged members of Congress to support a war powers resolution blocking further attacks without congressional approval, arguing that the conflict is a “reckless war by choice.” Hannah Morris, J Street’s vice president of government affairs, stated, “This represents not just about process, this is about a reckless war by choice, and it completely flies in the face of what President Trump ran on.”
As the primaries unfold, the Democratic Party faces a critical test: whether to prioritize a unified front against Trump, or to address the growing divide within its ranks over the war in Iran and the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups. The outcome of these races will likely shape the party’s foreign policy stance for years to come.
