The recent U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran has injected a new element into Democratic primary contests, prompting progressive candidates to sharply attack moderates for what they describe as insufficient opposition to President Donald Trump’s bombing campaign and for accepting financial support from the defense industry and pro-Israel groups. Those tensions are evident in primaries for both the U.S. Senate and House in states including Michigan, Colorado, Illinois, Maine and North Carolina.
Across at least half a dozen races, progressive challengers are making the war and campaign contributions from defense contractors and AIPAC-linked groups central to their arguments against establishment-backed or moderate Democrats. They contend that such donations undermine opponents’ stated opposition to the conflict and reveal broader ties to corporate and foreign-policy interests that progressives say conflict with their anti-war and economic-justice objectives.
"It’s difficult to trust politicians who take money from weapons manufacturers and AIPAC, all of whom are for this war, and for those politicians to then stand up and say they against the war," said Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic Senate primary candidate in Michigan, framing the argument advanced by several progressive contenders. Candidates pushing this line say refusing such contributions is an essential complement to public opposition to the bombing campaign; in other words, rhetorical opposition must be matched by a pledge to reject money from defense contractors and pro-Israel political actors.
Moderate Democrats targeted by these attacks have pushed back forcefully, arguing they opposed the Iran war quickly and that progressive opponents are manufacturing conflict for electoral purposes. Those defeats are not assured; the disputes underline internal party divisions at a moment when Democrats are attempting to regroup after setbacks in 2024 and to begin looking toward the 2028 presidential cycle.
How the war is being used in primaries
The war has become a focal point in advertising, speeches, media interviews and fundraising pitches. Progressives have accused some rivals of accepting funds from political action committees controlled by weapons manufacturers and from groups affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguing that those ties call into question opponents’ anti-war credentials.
In North Carolina’s Democratic House primary this month, Nida Allam, a county commissioner, centered an advertisement on the Iran conflict and on her opponent, incumbent Representative Valerie Foushee. Federal Election Commission filings show Foushee’s campaign accepted $3,000 each from political committees controlled by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman in this election cycle. In addition, when Foushee ran for Congress in 2022, FEC filings show that AIPAC’s political action committee spent over $2 million in support of her campaign, although Foushee said she would decline AIPAC-linked assistance this cycle.
Allam’s ad highlighted those contributions and included the pledge, "I will never take a dime from defense contractors or the pro-Israel lobby. I have opposed these forever wars my entire career." The race was close: Foushee narrowly won the March 3 primary by one percentage point and is considered the likely favorite for re-election in November.
Foushee pushed back on the criticism and framed her position as responsive to both the international situation and domestic priorities, stating, "Trump’s senseless war in Iran puts civilians abroad and our servicemembers at risk. Americans are tired of sending taxpayer money abroad for endless wars while the cost of groceries, healthcare, and housing continues to rise here at home."
Other contests and arguments
Progressive challengers have frequently combined attacks over contributions with criticism of votes to increase Pentagon funding. They point to votes by some Democratic incumbents to raise defense appropriations as evidence of contradiction between anti-war rhetoric and actions in Congress, and contrast those votes with progressive efforts to shift money toward domestic programs.
In Colorado’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary, state Senator Julie Gonzales, 43, is challenging incumbent John Hickenlooper, 74. Gonzales has criticized Hickenlooper’s October vote to raise the U.S. defense budget under the Trump administration, calling it hypocritical to decry war while supporting measures she views as bolstering America’s military capacity. "Whatever he says, John Hickenlooper owns this war," Gonzales told Reuters. Hickenlooper, like most Senate Democrats, voted this month in favor of a resolution intended to limit the president’s authority to wage war abroad, and he posted a video on X saying, "I think he started an illegal war with Iran. Americans don’t want another endless war in the Middle East."
In another Colorado House primary, progressive candidate Melat Kiros used the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign on February 28 to draw attention to her critique of politicians who accept defense industry funds. In an Instagram video recorded while walking down a street, Kiros denounced elected officials who take contributions from the defense sector, saying, "The only way things change is if we make sure that our elected representatives aren’t in the pockets of the military industrial complex." She also cited votes by her opponent, Representative Diana DeGette, against motions by progressive lawmakers to cut the Pentagon’s budget in 2020 and 2021. In a March 5 statement DeGette said, "This war is costing at least $1 billion every day. That is billions of dollars that could go towards affordable health care and housing. I refuse to support this war." DeGette’s campaign did not respond to follow-up requests for comment.
Wider implications for party strategy
Party strategists and outside groups are interpreting these primary fights as part of a larger debate over the Democratic Party’s direction. The primary tension is whether to prioritize appealing to moderate and swing voters or to emphasize policies that energize the party’s progressive base. That debate involves not only foreign-policy stances but also the scope and boldness of economic reforms and the degree of alignment with corporate interests.
Bill Galston, a veteran Democratic strategist, cautioned that these divisions will not disappear after November, saying, "The day after the midterms are over in November these tensions will burst forth." Matt Bennett, a co-founder of the centrist think tank Third Way, warned that pressure from progressives to debate the party’s stance on Iran and its broader direction could weaken Democratic prospects in the midterm elections. He argued that successful nominees need to appeal to moderate voters and said, "These hyper progressives that are running in these primaries don’t do that, and that’s the concern."
Progressive advocacy organizations that have backed primary challengers see the Iran war as an opening to press longer-term changes in party priorities. Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for Justice Democrats, which has endorsed candidates including Allam and Kiros, said supporters want leaders willing to confront corporatism and the defense industry. "The war with Iran is a great testing ground for that sort of future of the Democratic Party," Andrabi said.
Party apparatus response and political backdrop
The Democratic National Committee, which manages election strategy and candidate support, did not directly address internal disagreements over Iran when asked. Instead, it emphasized economic and domestic issues that party leaders want to keep at the center of messaging. Mia Ehrenberg, a DNC spokesperson, said, "More than a year into his term, prices are higher than ever and Trump’s latest foreign conflict has plunged our nation into a deadly and costly war that no one asked for."
While lawmakers in Congress have largely united against the Iran war, the contests unfolding in primary seasons demonstrate that internal party fights over money, foreign policy and alignment with corporate interests are likely to continue through the primaries and into the fall. Party officials and strategists face the question of whether these disputes will cost Democrats an electoral advantage in the midterms at a time when Republicans are confronting their own headwinds, or whether the debates will shape the party’s identity as it prepares for future presidential cycles.
For progressives, the Iran conflict has revived long-standing demands to end U.S.-led overseas military engagements and to limit the political influence of the defense industry and wealthy donors, while also redirecting attention to domestic priorities like economic fairness and equal rights. For moderates and establishment figures, the primary season has highlighted the tension between resisting the current war and maintaining relationships with key donors and institutions that have supported their campaigns in prior cycles.
As the primary calendar progresses, more Democratic contests in multiple states are likely to see arguments about donations, defense budgets and anti-war credibility intensify, turning the Iran campaign into both a campaign issue and an intra-party litmus test for competing visions of the Democratic Party’s future.
Full list of notable examples cited
- Michigan: Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate primary challenge and his comments on defense contractor and AIPAC donations.
- North Carolina: Nida Allam’s challenge to Valerie Foushee, including FEC-reported $3,000 donations each from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman committees and prior AIPAC PAC spending exceeding $2 million in 2022.
- Colorado: Julie Gonzales’ Senate primary challenge to John Hickenlooper and criticism of his October defense budget vote; Melat Kiros’ House primary challenge and criticism of Diana DeGette’s votes against progressive Pentagon budget cuts in 2020 and 2021.
- Other states: Mentioned contests in Illinois and Maine where similar tensions are emerging.
Conclusion
The U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran has become more than an immediate foreign-policy crisis for Democrats; it is shaping internal debates about money, influence and the direction of the party. Primary voters and activists in multiple states are using the conflict to press questions about whether candidates’ actions match their rhetoric. With the primary season ongoing and the midterms approaching, these disputes are likely to remain a prominent and potentially consequential feature of Democratic politics.