Fresh from a sweeping midterm election victory, congressional Democrats have pledged to defund and end President Donald Trump’s unpopular war with Iran. Yet Peter Juul argues that escaping a foolish war can prove far harder than campaigning against one.

The strategy echoes the Democratic response to the Iraq War after the 2006 midterms. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden each proposed legislation conditioning continued war funding on some form of American withdrawal within a specific time frame.

Those congressional efforts went nowhere. President George W. Bush instead escalated the conflict by sending tens of thousands of additional American troops into Iraq.

The added forces reduced violence enough for Bush to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with the Iraqi government, which Obama completed in 2011. American troops returned in 2014 after the bloody rise of the Islamic State and remained until this past September.

The political circumstances surrounding Iran are different. Democrats have much larger majorities in both chambers of Congress, while the war with Iran has never enjoyed public support.

But the strategic stakes are also higher, according to Juul. Trump began the war without clear goals or a discernible reason, leaving the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital waterways, vulnerable to control by the hostile regime in Tehran.

Cutting off funding for American combat operations in the gulf could effectively surrender control of the strait to Iran. That is a serious consequence for Democrats who want to halt the war without worsening the strategic disaster Trump created.

Middle East energy producers are planning pipelines that would bypass the strait, but those projects will take time and cannot fully replace the waterway. They would also remain vulnerable to attacks from Iran and its proxies.

Even with alternative pipelines, Iran could retain a lasting grip over a critical channel for global commerce. Such control would also damage the longstanding American principle of freedom of the seas.

Defunding combat operations would not necessarily “end” the war. Without a negotiated agreement with Tehran, fighting could resume whenever the Iranian regime chooses.

Funding restrictions would also create difficult practical questions for American forces in and around the gulf. Congress would have to determine whether those troops could defend themselves, whether the military must leave the region entirely and what happens if Tehran charges tolls or attacks ships that refuse to pay.

There is also a political trap for Democrats. If they successfully eliminate war funding, they could dilute Trump’s personal responsibility for what Juul describes as perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in American history.

The war remains deeply unpopular, and Americans currently hold Trump responsible for it. Juul warns that Trump loyalists and opportunistic Republicans could eventually claim that Democrats turned an approaching victory into a humiliating defeat.

If the war is already lost, as some foreign policy analysts say, Democrats have reason to ensure Trump retains responsibility for the catastrophe. Taking partial control of the outcome could leave them sharing the political liability for his war.

Trump will likely veto any congressional effort restricting his ability to use military force against Iran. Despite their sweeping victories, Democrats are unlikely to command the two thirds majorities needed in both chambers to override that veto.

That reality leaves Democrats with several grim choices. They can shut down the government over the issue, negotiate lesser restrictions or accept a temporary defeat after demonstrating that they tried to stop the war.

Accepting such a defeat, with or without limits on Trump’s conduct, could allow Democrats to say credibly that they did what they could. It would also help them avoid accepting responsibility for the war’s ultimate outcome.

Congress has other ways to pursue accountability. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is likely to become the next speaker, has supported efforts to impeach War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Relevant committees could also impose stricter scrutiny on U.S. Central Command, which directs military operations in the Middle East. Its leader, Adm. Brad Cooper, chose this moment to launch a podcast, a decision Juul describes as inexplicable.

Still, oversight and impeachment efforts cannot solve the central problem. Trump and his administration have trapped the United States in a war it can neither win nor afford to lose, and Congress cannot simply legislate that disaster out of existence.