Trending
George Wallace, during his 1968 Independent presidential campaign, mocked the Republican and Democratic parties for not having “a dime’s worth of difference” between them. Although he meant it in a totally different context, it does resonate in 2026, particularly as it relates to foreign policy.
After Donald Trump, along with Israel’s prime minister, launched air strikes against Iran in February, Democrats and Republicans generally supported the war. Then the consequences and miscalculations began to emerge. Although Democratic leadership seemed positively giddy over the “decapitation” of Iranian top officials, they became less so after Trump found himself mired in an unwinnable conflict. Suddenly they discovered the war was flawed, not well thought out, and had led to disastrous economic results.
But contradiction in Democratic arguments began to emerge. When President Trump issued his Memorandum of Understanding in June, he was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats for it being a TACO agreement (Trump always chickens out). Even though the memo was clearly hastily written, it did provide a long and winding way out of the conflict. But hawkish Democrats who seemingly wanted to continue the war were eager to see Trump have egg on his face for “appeasing” the Iranian government. And the Southern bloc of Republicans were mortified that peace may have broken out in the Middle East.
This is nothing new. During the Korean War, Republicans had seemingly supported President Harry Truman and their favorite commander, General Douglas MacArthur. However, they nitpicked, supporting the war but questioning how it came about. After Communist China intervened in November 1950 and forced US forces back into South Korea, the GOP was livid. When MacArthur was dismissed in 1951, they accused Truman of near treason.
This trend continued during the Vietnam War. Republicans, unmindful apparently of the nuclear age, taunted LBJ for not seeking “victory”. LBJ, as a result, tended to bend toward a military solution but was criticized for “hobbling” the American military forces. As America drifted further into the quagmire, a peace movement arose. But it was divided; one protester said they “wanted peace” but “did not want to lose.” Hence the dilemma is the same one that Trump finds himself facing today.
Politically, Democrats are following the path charted by Republicans during Korea and Vietnam. Republicans such as Tom Cotton and Roger Wicker will not allow Trump to obtain “peace without victory.” But there are contradictions aplenty in Congressional arguments that seemingly advocate peace but undermine the President’s ability to end conflict. As with other American presidents, he found themselves “waist deep in the big muddy,” and now has to find a workable way out. Democrats and Republicans should allow Trump to do so, even if the means are not elegant.
Remember, Republicans never allowed Joe Biden to leave Afghanistan without scoring political points; although Trump advocated the same course, they quibbled with the methods. Now the President is getting a taste of his own medicine. But should the goal be obscured for political purposes? The Democratic and Republican parties both bear responsibility for the Middle East morass, and they too must seek an end to this fiasco-quasi-war in the Strait of Hormuz. Perhaps this was the wrong conflict at the wrong time.