The onset of the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran a month ago brought back haunting memories for Virginia state Del. Dan Helmer, a Democratic congressional candidate and veteran of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
“In 2002, a president misled the American public, leading my friends to perish in an unnecessary war,” Helmer expressed in an interview with POLITICO, reflecting on the upcoming 22nd anniversary of a friend’s combat death. “Once more, President [Donald] Trump has sidestepped democratic norms to initiate an unwarranted war in Iran without strategic foresight. The repercussions of such rash military actions are evident, and the complexities of achieving regime change for a predictable outcome have been central to my military experience.”
Michael Bouchard offers a contrasting view. The Michigan Republican House hopeful and Bronze Star honoree, who served in the Army and National Guard—including a counter-ISIS tour in Iraq in 2025, during the previous Israel-Iran clash—sees the current conflict as a vital, albeit limited, mission against a long-standing regional threat to U.S. service members.
“I’ve witnessed how strength can preserve lives, and that’s the essence of this mission,” Bouchard said. “Those who’ve been to war desire peace the most, but we cannot ignore looming threats.”
Across the nation, numerous military veterans running for Congress, from both political parties, are tailoring their campaign narratives to align with a wartime nation. In a swiftly evolving environment with potential ceasefire negotiations, military escalations, and global energy concerns, candidates present sharply divided opinions on the conflict. Yet, the personal stakes of war resonate profoundly with many of them.
For instance, New York Assemblymember Robert Smullen, who has a 24-year Marine Corps background and is vying for a GOP House seat, has navigated the Strait of Hormuz multiple times and examined nuclear enrichment as a White House fellow at the Energy Department. Montana Democrat Matt Rains, a Black Hawk pilot in South Korea and Iraq, now faces rising diesel costs as a rancher. Meanwhile, Zach Dembo, a former Navy JAG officer running as a Democrat in Kentucky, has served on two aircraft carriers currently stationed in the Middle East.
Despite their varied insights, they reach differing conclusions.
What unifies them is a shared disdain for Iran’s autocratic regime, with over six Democratic and Republican veteran candidates expressing to POLITICO their desire to see it dismantled.
Beyond this, however, there is little agreement across party lines.
Democrats are incensed by Trump’s failure to justify the war and secure support from the public, Congress, and international allies. They criticize the U.S. strategy for lacking clarity and strategic objectives, fearing Trump’s perceived recklessness might lead to an unending conflict, costing lives without achieving significant goals.
“I see no clear resolution, and that deeply concerns me,” Dembo remarked.
“The notion that bombing a nation briefly would compel them to surrender and welcome regime change is ludicrous,” Rains commented.
Democrats also view the war as a costly diversion from domestic economic issues. “We’re spending vast sums on this conflict while neglecting pressing issues at home, which is the real disconnect,” stated Jessica Killin, an Army veteran campaigning in Colorado.
Republican veterans, while also against endless wars, perceive this conflict differently. Adhering to Trump’s narrative, they argue that Iran has been a hostile force for 47 years. They concur with Democrats on the need for a defined strategy and timely resolution but express greater confidence in Trump’s ability to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
“I comprehend the sacrifices veterans and their families have made,” said Oregon Republican Monique DeSpain, an Air Force veteran and JAG with three decades of experience working with veterans. “This is why I support the swift elimination of threats to our nation. Congress must grasp that national security delays and inaction bear irreversible costs.”
How voters will respond to these veteran candidates during wartime remains uncertain, as many are in competitive primaries or swing districts. Those interviewed by POLITICO believe they hold a unique position to speak with authority: Democrats highlighting security expertise to expose the war’s weaknesses, and Republicans calming wary voters by explaining the potential success and security benefits of U.S. actions.
“I’ve walked in their shoes and understand their challenges, having faced similar situations post-September 11th,” Smullen said of currently deployed troops. “This mission is overdue, and it’s essential we pursue it.”
If you enjoyed this content, consider subscribing to POLITICO’s Playbook PM newsletter.
