作者：劳伦·福克斯（Lauren Fox）、莎拉·费里斯（Sarah Ferris）
1小时31分钟前发布
发布时间：2026年3月5日，美国东部时间凌晨5:30
众议员尤金·温德曼（Eugene Vindman）周三在华盛顿特区发表讲话。
布莱恩·多齐尔（Bryan Dozier）/NURPHO/美联社
众议员尤金·温德曼（Eugene Vindman）是一代因中东“持久战”经历而投身国会的年轻民主党人之一。
这些民主党人是对唐纳德·特朗普总统决定将美国卷入对伊朗战争的最早、最直言不讳的批评者——这一立场使他们与党内一些更倾向干预主义的成员产生分歧。
“我不会为伊朗政权和阿亚图拉（指伊朗最高领袖）流泪。我理解威胁，但也明白战争容易开始、难以结束。”曾是25年军龄老兵的温德曼周三上午在美国国会大厦外与六位民主党退伍军人并肩站立时表示，“将美国的鲜血和财富投入到这场我们本不必参与的冲突中，这是一种承诺。”
3月2日，一架隶属于第37打击战斗机中队的F/A-18E“超级大黄蜂”战机降落在东地中海“杰拉尔德·R·福特”号航母的飞行甲板上。
美国海军
“当华盛顿的精英们敲起战争鼓点，捶胸顿足，谈论战争代价并表现得强硬时，他们根本不会想到自己要去打仗。”科罗拉多州众议员杰森·克劳（Jason Crow）补充道，他曾在伊拉克执行过三次任务。
党内领袖，包括众议院少数党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯（Hakeem Jeffries），正在放大这些声音，民主党人正试图在战争迅速升级的余波中寻求出路。尽管温德曼和他的民主党退伍军人同僚们知道，在共和党主导的国会中阻止特朗普的行动几乎没有胜算，但他们正试图向持怀疑态度的美国公众发声——认为特朗普政府违背了中期选举前几个月的核心承诺。
但这对民主党人来说是一条艰难的路线。党内领袖正在努力应对党内的尖锐分歧，尤其是亲以色列派系预计将在周四的关键众议院投票中违抗领导，试图限制特朗普在海外的军事权力。宾夕法尼亚州参议员约翰·费特曼（John Fetterman）是周三参议院中唯一反对类似投票的民主党人。
3月3日周二，参议员约翰·费特曼在华盛顿特区国会山对记者发表讲话。
伊丽莎白·弗兰茨（Elizabeth Frantz）/路透社
目前，大多数民主党人坚决谴责特朗普未经国会批准就对伊朗发动打击的决定。但该党也将很快被迫面对支持在伊朗冲突中部署美军的现实，包括是否要再投入数十亿美元以维持美国行动的问题。
党内领袖急于避免重蹈覆辙，避免重蹈20多年前伊拉克战争中困扰他们的分裂局面。他们也清楚，这场冲突可能持续数周、数月甚至更久，这将考验民主党保持团结的能力。
据两名了解会议情况的人士透露，周二晚上的闭门会议上，杰弗里斯与约六位亲以色列民主党人会面，试图争取他们支持战争权力法案，过程中近一小时都在听取同僚的反对意见。
但此次会议并未让这些成员承诺支持该法案。
“这并没有改变我的想法。”参加会议的众议员格雷格·兰兹曼（Greg Landsman）告诉美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）。
3月3日周二，众议员格雷格·兰兹曼（右）回答美国有线电视新闻网记者马努·拉朱（Manu Raju）的提问。
美国有线电视新闻网
几小时前，兰兹曼对政府对伊朗的初步打击表示了出人意料的支持，并誓言反对旨在限制总统未经国会批准使用武力的两党决议——他认为该决议可能会削弱美军在海外的行动能力。
“我更倾向于‘国家优先’，所以在这种情况下，我认为对国家和我的选民（选区）最有利的就是国家安全。对我来说，这是显而易见的：他们有机会摧毁伊朗政权的特定军事资产，让我们更安全。”兰兹曼表示，但他补充说，如果伊朗冲突“超出当前目标”，国会应该拥有发言权。
国会大厦另一端，费特曼的立场更为激进，他指责党内因“害怕”自由派基础而压制对特朗普行动的支持。
“我们为什么不能都说‘世界更安全了’？”当被问及大多数民主党人对打击行动的反对时，费特曼对记者说，“为什么不能承认地球上最邪恶的人被消灭了？”
然而，兰兹曼和费特曼的观点与包括国家安全民主党人在内的许多同僚形成鲜明对比。后者认为，特朗普的行动使国家安全大幅下降，而没有考虑到美军的代价。
“如果我再听到一个从未在军营服役一天的‘鹰派’坐在华盛顿镀金办公室里或海湖庄园（Mar-a-Lago）里，空谈战争却从未经历过战争是什么样子，我会发疯的。”纽约州民主党众议员帕特·瑞安（Pat Ryan）怒吼道，他是一名曾两次被部署到伊拉克的战斗老兵。
瑞安属于一群民主党人，他们大多40多岁，在美军25年驻伊阿期间（约1999-2024年）曾在伊拉克和阿富汗服役。温德曼称，他的双胞胎兄弟亚历克斯（Alex）曾在伊拉克被“伊朗制造的”炮弹在简易爆炸装置（IED）袭击中受伤。
民主党领袖坚决否认费特曼关于他们向自由派基础“讨好”的指控。
3月3日周二，参议员布莱恩·沙茨（Brian Schatz）和科里·布克（Cory Booker）与媒体成员交谈。
联合报道
夏威夷州民主党参议员布莱恩·沙茨警告同僚，在这场政治博弈中不要过度思考。
“从地缘政治角度看，这是一个战略错误；从道德层面看，这值得质疑；从政治层面看，这极度不受欢迎。所以不要自作聪明。”他在谈到对战争权力法案持观望态度的民主党人时说道。
但战争权力的斗争只是开始。民主党人是否应该在伊朗冲突中拥有更多发言权，这是一回事；而面对伊朗长期战事可能迫使他们就为美军提供补给等更大问题表态，这是完全不同的挑战。
已有迹象表明，国会可能需要在未来几周或几个月内通过法案，提供更多资金和武器，至少要补充此次冲突中消耗的弹药。这一问题可能在中期选举前数月进一步加剧党内分歧。
“我想确保我们的军人和地区内的美国公民得到尽可能的保护。”亚利桑那州民主党参议员、退伍军人马克·凯利（Mark Kelly）表示，“我们必须保护我们的部队，现在有很多人处于危险之中，所以我们会仔细审视他们的提议。”
亚利桑那州民主党参议员鲁本·加列戈（Ruben Gallego）是一名曾在伊拉克服役的海军陆战队战斗老兵，他表示将仔细审查任何补充资金请求，但他认为这对议员尤其是退伍军人来说是个难题。周六早上看到伊朗袭击的消息时，他只有一个想法：“又来了。”
“一方面，我希望确保我们的部队拥有所需的所有装备来保障安全；另一方面，在已经有1万亿美元预算、且又额外增加1750亿美元国土安全部预算的情况下，为一场‘选择性战争’花费500亿美元，这非常困难。”他说。
（注：文中所有人物职务、事件时间及地点均严格按照原文信息翻译，未作调整。）
They fought in Iraq. Now they’re the Democrats’ loudest voices against the war in Iran.
By Lauren Fox, Sarah Ferris
1 hr 31 min ago
PUBLISHED Mar 5, 2026, 5:30 AM ET
Rep. Eugene Vindman speaks in Washington, DC, on Wednesday.
Bryan Dozier/NURPHO/AP
Rep. Eugene Vindman is among a generation of young Democrats who ran for Congress, in part, because of their experience fighting a forever war in the Middle East.
These Democrats are some of the earliest and most vocal critics of President Donald Trump’s decision to enter the US into war with Iran — a view that puts them at odds with some of the more interventionist members of their party.
“I will not be shedding a tear for the Iranian regime and the Ayatollah. I understand the threat but I also understand that wars are easy to start and hard to finish,” Vindman, a 25-year Army veteran, said Wednesday morning outside the US Capitol, standing shoulder to shoulder with a half-dozen fellow Democratic veterans. “This is a commitment of American blood and treasure to a conflict that we didn’t need to be engaged in.”
An F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft, attached to Strike Fighter Squadron 37, lands on the flight deck of the Gerald R. Ford in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea on March 2.
US Navy
“When elites in Washington bang the war drums, pound their chest, talk about the costs of war and act tough, they’re not talking about them doing it,” added Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, who served three tours in Iraq.
Party leaders, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are amplifying those voices as Democrats seek to navigate the fallout from the quickly escalating war. While Vindman and his fellow Democratic veterans know they have little chance of blocking Trump’s actions in the GOP-led Congress, they’re trying to speak to a skeptical American public – arguing that the Trump administration has betrayed a core promise with the midterms just months away.
But it’s a difficult line for Democrats to walk. Party leaders are navigating sharp divisions within their ranks, particularly among a pro-Israel bloc that is expected to defy leadership in a key House vote on Thursday that will attempt to curb Trump’s military powers overseas. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, opposed a similar vote in the Senate on Wednesday – the only Democrat to do so.
Sen. John Fetterman speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, March 3.
Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters
For now, most Democrats are firmly condemning Trump’s decision to strike Iran without first seeking congressional approval. But the party will also soon be forced to contend with the reality of supporting US troops in the conflict in Iran, including questions about whether to spend billions of dollars more to shore up US operations.
Party leaders are eager not to repeat history and sow divisions that plagued them over the Iraq war more than 20 years ago. They also know it is just the beginning of a conflict that could go on for weeks, if not months or even longer, that will test Democrats’ ability to stay united.
In a closed-door meeting Tuesday night, Jeffries met with a bloc of roughly a half-dozen pro-Israel Democrats to make his case for backing the war powers measure, spending nearly an hour hearing the opposition from his fellow members, according to two people familiar with the meeting
But that meeting ended without a commitment from those members to get in line behind the measure.
“It didn’t change my mind,” Rep. Greg Landsman, who was one of those who attended the meeting, told CNN.
Rep. Greg Landsman, right, answers a question from CNN’s Manu Raju on Tuesday, March 3.
CNN
Hours earlier, Landsman offered a surprisingly supportive assessment of the administration’s initial strikes in Iran, and vowed to oppose the bipartisan resolution to curb the president’s use of force in the country absent congressional approval, which he said could hamstring the military’s work abroad.
“I’m more of a country-first guy, so whatever I think is best for the country and for my constituents, for the district, in this case, national security. To me, this was a no brainer. They had a window of opportunity to take out very specific military assets in order to defang the Iranian regime. We will be safer as a result,” Landsman said, though adding that Congress should have a say if the Iranian conflict “goes beyond” its current aims.
Across the Capitol, Fetterman has gone even further, accusing his party of silencing their support for Trump’s operation because they’re “afraid” of the base.
“Why can’t we all just say, ‘The world is safer’?” Fetterman told reporters, when asked about most Democrats’ opposition of the strikes. “Why can’t you just acknowledge the most evil people on the face of the earth were erased?”
The views of Landsman and Fetterman, however, contrast starkly from many of their colleagues, including the bloc of national security Democrats who have argued Trump’s move makes the country dramatically less safe without considering the costs to US troops.
“If I hear one more chicken hawk who’s never served a single day in uniform sitting in a gold plated office in DC or Mar-a-lago or anywhere else, try to talk tough having never seen what war is about, I’m going to lose my mind,” New York Democrat Rep. Pat Ryan, a combat veteran who was deployed twice to Iraq.
Ryan is among the group of Democrats, mostly in their 40s, who were deployed throughout Iraq and Afghanistan in the roughly 25 years that the US had troops there. Vindman, who deployed to Iraq, served as an infantry officer, paratrooper and as a military lawyer. His twin brother, Alex, was wounded in an IED attack in Iraq by an “Iranian manufactured” projectile, Vindman said Wednesday.
Democratic leaders firmly dispute Fetterman’s accusations that they are pandering to a liberal base.
Sen. Brian Schatz and Sen. Cory Booker speak with members of the media on Tuesday, March 3.
Pool
Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, warned Democrats should be careful not to overthink the politics of this.
“I think this is a strategic mistake in the geopolitical sense, I think it’s morally questionable and it’s politically incredibly unpopular, so don’t outsmart yourself,” he said generally about Democrats who are on the fence about the war powers resolution.
But the fight over war powers is just the beginning. It is one thing for Democrats to stay united on a question of whether Congress should have more say over initiating a conflict with Iran in the first place, it is an entirely different question for Democrats to confront the reality that a prolonged battle in Iran may force them to contend with bigger questions over supplying US forces in the region.
Already, there is a signal that Congress may need to pass legislation in the coming weeks or months to provide more funding and weapons to at the very least restock diminished ammunitions used in the conflict so far. That question could further divide Democrats just months before the midterm elections.
“I want to make sure our service members and US citizens in the region are protected to the extent we could possibly do that,” Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona and veteran said. “We gotta be able to protect our troops and there are a lot of people in harm’s way right now so we will take a close look at what they propose.”
Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq, said he will have to look at any supplemental funding request closely but contends it is a difficult question for lawmakers and veterans in particular. On Saturday morning when Gallego saw the news of the attack in Iran, he had one thought: “Here we go again.”
“There is one side of me that wants to make sure that all the equipment our troops need to be protected is there, at the same time funding a war of choice for $50 billion when there is already a trillion dollar budget when they have already added another $175 billion to the DHS budget, it makes it very difficult,” he said.