'War Begets War': Montco, Chesco Leaders Respond To Iran Conflict

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA — Local leaders in Montgomery and Chester counties have condemned the United States war in Iran this week, days after coordinated strikes with Israel were launched and longstanding Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed.

President Trump and supporters have pointed to Iran's potential to gain a nuclear arsenal as justification, saying that talks fell apart in recent days. Critics point out that Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been making those claims for decades without evidence, providing an eerie modern parallel to the 2003 war in Iraq and making America the servant of Israel's agenda.

Montgomery County native and U.S. Congresswoman Madeleine Dean condemned the "erratic decision-making of an irrational President."

"This action — done without the constitutionally-mandated consultation of Congress — propels an already fragile, fragmented Middle East into the path of war," Dean added. "Americans do not want war. Americans do not want to send their sons and daughters into foreign conflict. Americans do not want to live in fear of an ever-escalating, volatile situation."

"War begets war."

But as concerning as Democrats may find Trump's unilateral wielding of the armed forces, horror at the actions of Khamenei and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is hardly new, nor hardly controversial.

Khamenei's 36-year rule has been marked by a violent suppression of dissidents, suspected widespread human rights abuses within Iran, and a sponsorship of terrorism against civilians abroad. Thousands have been killed. And a significant segment of secular Iranians, parts of the society that were not eliminated after the 1979 revolution, has been clamoring for change for decades. The news that Khamenei's death was met with celebrations around many parts of Tehran has been, in many cases, ignored.

Chester County's U.S. Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan, who sits on the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, acknowledged the dangers posed by Iran but said they did not rise to the broad scale war now being waged.

"Make no mistake, Iran is a very bad actor on the world stage, and has been for a long time, but the American people have not been given any evidence of an appreciable change, and Congress did not authorize any action," Houlahan said. "The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has expressed concern about the readiness implications of this action as well."

Houlahan has since been on a media blitz as Congress prepares to vote on Trump's war powers in Iran. The vote could restrict what ability the president has to act unilaterally in waging the conflict.

Reactions to the war have not been as clean along party lines as widely imagined. While the left generally opposes the conflict on humanitarian lines and has built a growing coalition against Israel's influence following the genocide in Gaza, many on the right have rejected it on ideological lines. MAGA's "America First" theology, they argue, means little to no involvement in foreign conflicts, and certainly no additional new American military presence in the Middle East.

However, both of Pennsylvania's Senators have bucked the trends of their parties.

Republican U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick said that Trump acted fully within his rights as president.

"For decades, the Iranian regime has killed Americans, threatened Israel and our allies in the region with their ballistic missiles and nuclear ambitions, and butchered tens of thousands of its own people," McCormick said. "They are the world’s number one sponsor of terror. The president has given the ayatollahs a chance for a deal, and they have rejected a path to peace and prosperity."

Democratic U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, who has performed a 180 on many policy issues over the past few years, also expressed full-throated support for the war.

"Every member in the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon," he said. "I’m baffled why so many are unwilling to support the only action to achieve that. Empty sloganeering vs. commitment to global security — which is it?"