Democrats are hyping up their plans to pressure President Donald Trump to abandon the Iran war if they gain power in the midterms.

They are far more quiet when it comes to another question: What’s their plan to defuse the threat from Iran?

It’s easy, after all, to rage on the congressional floor about how the war has been an ill-thought-out, poorly executed, multilevel catastrophe that’s hurting Americans’ pocketbooks. But it’s also true that Iran’s Islamist regime remains entrenched and anti-American to its core. Trump could quit the war today, and not only will Iran remain a danger, it will possibly be a bigger one than in previous decades, because U.S. attacks are energizing its more hard-line elements.

In recent days, I’ve asked Democratic lawmakers, aides and policy savants if they were working on an agenda to constrain Iran’s threats on the nuclear, terrorism and other fronts. I was told, in effect, no. There’s no major legislative package in the works to signal that Democrats know Tehran is not the good guy.

“For the most part, the view has been that things are still so in flux, and it’s not our problem for two years, so for the moment, just criticizing this disaster is fine,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Middle East-focused aide to then-Vice President Kamala Harris. “But there’s also a recognition that this is going to probably be a total mess by the time we likely inherit it in 2029.”

That’s striking given long-standing hawkishness among some Democrats about Iran. This is a party that couldn’t get fully on board with then-President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran in 2015 and whose members largely agree with the GOP that the U.S. must stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Democrats’ hesitation to prioritize tough moves against Iran isn’t just the result of the rise in their ranks of progressives averse to military intervention. Many say they are being practical in sticking solely to an anti-war legislative plan.

They don’t want to muddy their message by talking about the dangers of the Iranian regime. They also have limited bandwidth and time. So the preference is to focus on coercing Trump to end the war — or, absent that happening, at least make sure the electorate knows he’s to blame for the mess in the Middle East.

While Democrats recognize that Trump could veto or ignore any of their legislative pushes, they still plan to use war powers resolution votes, oversight hearings, appropriations mechanisms and maybe impeachment of at least one Cabinet member to pressure Trump to quit the war.

They’ll also position their anti-war push inside a larger narrative of a president — and a Republican Party — that is incompetent and damaging to Americans’ finances.

Offering proposals for how to hem in Tehran doesn’t easily fit into that plan, Democrats say.

“There is undoubtedly a very, very strong anti-war sentiment across the United States, across parties,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), who is of Iranian descent and opposes the war. “It makes it difficult in today’s politics to have nuance when dealing with complex foreign policy issues, especially when here in the United States, people are struggling so deeply economically.”

But dodging the underlying dilemma could prove a vulnerability for Democrats.

In the coming months, Republicans in Congress could spin Democrats’ anti-war strategy as a rescue package for a brutal regime — on top of painting Democrats as defeatist, anti-military and, because it still matters in many circles, anti-Israel.

“Positioning themselves as the party trying to save the regime strikes me as a losing political strategy ahead of the 2028 presidential campaign,” said Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank that has helped shape the Trump team’s thinking on Tehran.

Having covered the Iran debate for more than a decade, I can tell you it’s like being in a funhouse of mirrors. Every argument has both a twist and a truth to it.

Those who want to use diplomacy to resolve America’s many frustrations with Iran (nuclear program, ballistic missiles, terrorism, cybercrime, human rights) must admit that such efforts have, at best, limited success. Those who advocate for military-driven regime change need only look at the past eight months to see the flaws in that stance. And those pushing for more sanctions need to remember that Tehran has weathered economic pressure from the U.S. for decades.

(Some on Capitol Hill argue that the policy question of how to deal with the Iranian regime is best left for 2028 presidential candidates. But congressional moves still matter, especially elsewhere in the world, even if it’s a symbolic bill amounting to a rant.)

At one point in my conversations, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) suggested — kindly — that I was engaging in a logical fallacy by separating the threat of Iran from the problems caused by the war.

“This war is making Iran more powerful,” he said, an allusion to everything from Iran’s designs on the Strait of Hormuz to the regime’s tougher line toward its citizens. “The idea that you would be perceived as being weak on Iran for stopping this war is laughable.”

Many on the right disagree. Iran has suffered significant military and leadership losses since the U.S. and Israel launched the war in late February. The U.S. has imposed a maritime blockade and severe new sanctions on Iran that are unlike any past squeeze on its economy. Ordinary Iranians could eventually revolt in a consequential way, the hawks say.

Why the midterms are a warning sign for both parties
Some Republicans could see the current conditions in Iran — as bad as it has been for them politically — as a reason to counter the standard Democratic argument that the U.S. should return to diplomacy with Tehran.

They may argue — to Democrats’ bitter protest — that Obama’s nuclear deal was too flawed to work even before Trump tore it up in 2018. Some opponents of the nuclear deal will almost certainly point out that its provisions would have started expiring by now anyway. And, they will add, Iran’s promises will mean even less going forward because the regime’s surviving leaders have no incentive to engage seriously with Washington.

“Diplomacy has repeatedly failed,” said Blaise Misztal of the hawkish Jewish Institute for National Security of America, who regularly engages with both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill.

“There is never going to be a deal that is acceptable to us that they’re willing to offer.“

Much of what we could see in the coming two years will be theatrics and intentional efforts to confuse what certain words and demands mean.

The Trump administration won’t so much as admit it’s in a “war” with Iran. It has cast its naval blockade on Iran as an economic squeeze, not a military action. Why should it agree to a future war powers resolution that ties its hands?

It’s possible that Trump becomes more sensitive to his image in his final years.

“He would probably ignore any laws, but he knows it’s a political loser and cares about his legacy, so if Dems are able to shape the narrative, he may be responsive,” one Democratic congressional staffer argued, having been granted anonymity to discuss sensitive behind-the-scenes thinking.

Trump, however, can be very stubborn. He’s already made it clear he’s open to at least one more intense round of military strikes on Iran after the midterms, and he has used terms like “annihilate.” Besides, foreign policy is one area in which presidents tend to have few constraints, and it’s not like he faces reelection.

And what if Trump keeps the military and economic pressure going and — hear me out — the effort works? What if the regime somehow melts away during his final years in office?

Will Democrats look like they were on the wrong side of history?

I can imagine the Democrats’ press releases now: “The Iranian regime was always a blight upon the world …”