tactic

TAYLORSVILLE, Utah — For decades, Democrats’ only chance of getting elected to Congress from the conservative state of Utah was by convincing voters that they were sensible moderates, not like the zealous progressives from California or Colorado.

But the political landscape has changed, thanks to a redistricting shakeup that created a deep blue district anchored by Salt Lake City. Suddenly, congressional candidates are trying to outflank each other on the left in an unusual race that could help determine whether Democrats take back control of the U.S. House in the midterms.

Exhibit A is Ben McAdams, a former congressman who once described himself as pro-life and voted against a federal minimum wage increase. As he mounts a comeback campaign in a much more Democratic district, he pledged his support for abortion rights and raising the minimum wage during a recent forum for young voters.

As primary opponents criticized McAdams as the most conservative among them, he insisted that he’s only “moderate in tone.”

It’s a far different approach than McAdams used in 2018, when he ousted a Republican incumbent in the midterms of President Donald Trump’s first term. While representing the southwest Salt Lake Valley and parts of deep-red Utah County in the former 4th district, he was considered the most conservative House Democrat during his single term by one analysis, before losing reelection to a Republican.

McAdams is now running in the new 1st district, including all of Salt Lake City and much of its suburbs, which emerged from a years-long legal battle over Utah’s congressional map.

Whoever wins the primary will likely win the November general election, and McAdams faces a half-dozen Democratic opponents.

“What makes me a strong candidate is the fact that I’ve actually delivered on a lot of things people are talking about,” McAdams told The Associated Press. “It’s easy to have a strongly worded tweet or talking points, but I can actually follow that up with accomplishments that are making life better.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin views Utah’s 1st district as a foothold in a red state that could not only help the party win the House this year but set it up for long-term success. He said the party is pouring more money into Utah than ever before — at least $22,500 a month — to build infrastructure ahead of the 2030 census, when the fast-growing state could gain House seats.

The recipe for success, Martin said, is a willingness to meet voters where they’re at and a platform that reflects “not just the majority of Democrats, but the majority of the people in the district.”

Unlike state Republicans, the Democrats are holding an open primary on June 23, meaning anyone in the district can vote, regardless of party affiliation. That could benefit a candidate like McAdams, who built a broad base during his previous campaign. But state party leaders have said they’re confident that registered Democrats have a strong enough majority to decide the primary.

Democrats have historically struggled to gain solid footing in Utah, where about half the population belongs to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Members of the faith known widely as the Mormon church have always leaned Republican.

Even though the church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, the capital is one of the only places where Democrats hold local control and religion takes a back seat in politics.

Martin expects the youth vote will be key to winning in Utah and building longevity there. Utah is the youngest state, with a median age of about 32.

“This is a group that’s up for grabs,” he told the AP, noting that Democrats too often assume young voters are with them. He said that could mean Utah “is one of the biggest potential swing states in the country.”

Robert Axson, chairman of the Utah Republican Party, rejected that notion.

“Everything I am seeing shows the younger generation continuing to lead in the promotion of our conservative principles,” he said. “While we see the generational passing of the torch, there is not a political swing away from the values that make Utah a wonderful place to call home.”

Jockeying for the Gen Z vote

Several young voters who came to meet candidates on a Saturday morning in Taylorsville said they hoped to capitalize on the opportunity to elect a progressive.

Milo Hohmann, 22, of Holladay, said state Sen. Nate Blouin is the “firebrand” that Utah needs in Congress.

Perhaps the most vocal Democrat in the Republican-led state legislature, Blouin has racked up endorsements from some of the country’s most prominent progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Reps. Pramila Jayapal, Greg Casar and Maxwell Frost.

Blouin said he aims to energize an electorate that has grown accustomed to settling for someone who will “play nice” with Republicans.

He jabbed at McAdams’ voting record while defending himself against criticisms that he has never passed legislation. Blouin said he’s been effectively blacklisted by Republican legislative leaders, and at least two bills that he originally sponsored passed after they advanced under other lawmakers’ names.

“I don’t measure progress by how many times you can get pats on the back from Republicans,” he told the AP.

His stance resonated with Hohmann, a transportation engineer, who said Utah has “an electric moment” to elect a Democrat who won’t compromise their values.

Hannah Paisley Zoulek, 19, of Millcreek, said she’s leaning toward Blouin or his colleague in the state Senate, former teacher Kathleen Riebe. But she had a concern about Blouin.

“I struggle a bit with Senator Blouin’s emphasis on how hard he holds his own positions,” Zoulek said. “It’s great if you want to make a statement, but not necessarily if you want to do the work.”

Neither Hohmann nor Zoulek thought McAdams was the right fit for the new district given his more moderate past.

Ben Iverson, who will be voting for the first time this year, disagrees.

The 17-year-old from Cottonwood Heights considers himself very progressive and said he thinks McAdams is “a great option.” He noted that McAdams voted to impeach Trump in 2019, despite knowing it could cost him reelection.

“I don’t think left-wing voters want a moderate Democrat who will capitulate to the right,” Iverson said, adding that he thinks McAdams has successfully shed the moderate label.

Throughout his life, Iverson said McAdams has been a mainstay of local politics. He was Salt Lake County’s state senator, then its mayor, and represented much of the area in his previous congressional district.

“I’ve been in the trenches, rolling up my sleeves, saying not ‘How do we pass a bill that will never become law?’ but ‘How do we actually enact legislation that will make people’s lives better?’” McAdams said.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.

For years, Iran’s leaders believed time was on their side.

After the United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Tehran effectively adopted what later came to be described as a “strategic patience” approach. Rather than immediately counter-escalating, Iran chose to endure economic pressure while waiting to see whether diplomacy could be revived.

The logic behind the strategy was simple: eventually, Washington would recognise that confrontation with Iran was against its own interests.

Today, that assumption lies shattered.

The collapse of diplomacy and the outbreak of war have forced Iran’s leadership to confront a painful reality: their belief that the US would ultimately act rationally may have been a profound miscalculation.

If Iran survives the current conflict, the lessons Iranian leaders draw from this moment may motivate them to pursue a nuclear deterrent.

The strategy of waiting

After the first Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA and launched its “maximum pressure” campaign in 2018, Tehran initially avoided major counter-escalation. For nearly a year, it largely remained within the deal’s limits, hoping the other signatories, particularly Europeans, could preserve the agreement and deliver on the promised economic benefits despite US sanctions.

When that failed, Tehran began gradually increasing its nuclear activities by expanding enrichment and reducing compliance step by step while still avoiding a decisive break.

The pace accelerated after Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament passed a law mandating a significant increase in nuclear activities, in the wake of the assassination of top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The shift was reinforced further by the 2021 election of conservative President Ebrahim Raisi.

The ultimate goal was to rebuild negotiating leverage, as Tehran believed that broader geopolitical and regional trends were gradually shifting in its favour. From its perspective, China’s rise, Russia’s growing assertiveness, and widening fractures within the Western alliance suggested that Washington’s ability to isolate Iran indefinitely might weaken over time.

At the same time, Iran pursued a strategy of reducing tensions with its neighbours, seeking improved relations with Gulf states that had previously supported the US “maximum pressure” campaign. By the early 2020s, many Gulf Cooperation Council countries had begun prioritising engagement and de-escalation with Iran, culminating in moves such as the 2023 Saudi-Iran rapprochement brokered by China.

Against this backdrop, even as tensions rose, Tehran continued to pursue diplomacy. Years of negotiations with the Biden administration aimed at restoring the JCPOA ultimately produced no agreement. Subsequent diplomatic efforts under Trump’s second presidency also collapsed.

Underlying this approach was a fundamental assumption: that the US ultimately preferred stability to war. Iranian officials believed Washington would eventually conclude that diplomacy, rather than endless pressure or a major war, was the most realistic and least costly path forward.

The joint US-Israeli assault on Iran has now exposed how deeply flawed that assumption was.

The return of deterrence

While Tehran based its strategy on mistaken beliefs about the rationality of US foreign policy, Washington, too, is misreading the situation.

For years, advocates of the maximum pressure campaign argued that sustained economic and military pressure would eventually fracture Iran internally. Some predicted that war would trigger widespread unrest and even the collapse of the regime.

So far, none of those predictions has materialised.

Despite the enormous strain on Iranian society, there have been no signs of regime disintegration. Instead, Iran’s political base — and in many cases broader segments of society — has rallied in the face of external attack.

Furthermore, Iran spent years reinforcing its deterrence capabilities. This involved expanding and diversifying its ballistic missile, cruise missile and drone programmes and developing multiple delivery systems designed to penetrate sophisticated air defences. Iranian planners also drew lessons from the direct exchanges with Israel in 2024 and the June 2025 war, improving targeting accuracy and coordination across different weapons systems.

The focus shifted towards preparing for a prolonged war of attrition: firing fewer but more precise strikes over time while attempting to degrade enemy radar and air defence systems.

We now see the results of this work. Iran has been able to inflict significant damage on its adversaries. Retaliatory attacks have killed seven Americans and 11 Israelis, placing a growing strain on US and Israeli missile defence systems, as interceptors are steadily depleted.

Iranian missile and drone strikes have hit targets across the region, including high-value military infrastructure such as radar installations. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent global energy markets into turmoil.

Apart from the immense cost of war, the US decision to launch the attack on Iran may have another unintended consequence: a radical shift in Iranian strategy.

For decades, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei maintained a longstanding religious prohibition on nuclear weapons. His assassination on the first day of the war may now motivate the new civilian and military leadership of the country to rethink its nuclear strategy.

There may now be fewer ideological reservations about pursuing nuclear weapons. The logic is simple: if diplomacy cannot deliver sanctions relief or permanently remove the threat of war, nuclear deterrence may appear to be the only viable alternative.

Iran’s actions in this conflict suggest that many leaders now see patience and diplomacy as strategic mistakes. These include the unprecedented scale of Iranian missile and drone attacks across the region, the targeting of US partners and critical infrastructure, and political decisions at home that signal a harder line, most notably the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as supreme leader.

The choice of Khamenei’s son breaks a longstanding taboo in a system founded on the rejection of hereditary rule and reflects a leadership increasingly prepared to abandon previous restraints.

If a more zero-sum logic of deterrence takes hold across the region, replacing dialogue as the organising principle of security, the Middle East may enter a far more dangerous era in which nuclear weapons are viewed as the ultimate form of deterrence and nuclear proliferation can no longer be stopped.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.