SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
iran
'End This War': Progressives in Congress Blast Trump's Return to Bombing Iran
"Restarting his reckless war with Iran won't make America stronger," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It will cost more lives and waste more taxpayer dollars."
Jul 08, 2026
Key progressives in Congress took aim at President Donald Trump on Wednesday amid his second straight night of attacks on Iran.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) first said Tuesday that its forces had "begun launching a series of powerful strikes against Iran," in response to attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Then, Trump said Wednesday that the ceasefire established under the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed last month was "over" and "I don't want to deal with" the Iranians.
As oil prices soared, CENTCOM announced later Wednesday that "at the direction of the commander in chief, US Central Command forces have started conducting additional strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway."
Minutes later, progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declared: "After getting the United States into a war based on lies, Trump has now declared the ceasefire with Iran 'over' after less than a month. Restarting his reckless war with Iran won't make America stronger. It will cost more lives and waste more taxpayer dollars. END THIS WAR."
Meanwhile, Trump shared a series of videos of the bombings across Iran on his Truth Social platform Wednesday evening.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement that "the Trump administration is steering the United States back toward an illegal and disastrous war with Iran. Rather than implementing the agreement it negotiated, it has chosen escalation over diplomacy."
"A return to war is illegal," NIAC emphasized. "Congress passed a war powers resolution directing the president to terminate hostilities, and a majority of Americans oppose another war with Iran. If President Trump wants to return to war, he must seek congressional authorization. If he refuses, Congress must enforce the law."
The US House of Representatives voted 215-208 in favor of a war powers resolution aimed at ending Trump's illegal war of choice on Iran early last month. After a few weeks, the Senate also passed it, with a 50-48 vote—but just a day later, under pressure from the president, Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) helped the GOP block a subsequent measure.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), sponsor of the blocked resolution, said at the time that "after both Republican-majority Houses took the historic step of voting that additional war against Iran is illegal without congressional authorization, President Trump came to the Capitol and tried to browbeat Republican senators for upholding their oaths of office."
"To appease his temper tantrum, Republicans agreed to defeat a superfluous motion to proceed to a separate War Powers Resolution currently pending before the Senate," he continued. "The vote is of no consequence and does not undo the expressed position of Congress that further war against Iran is illegal unless Congress votes for it."
Kaine also spoke out Wednesday morning, saying: "Congress voted against more war with Iran. The U.S. should not be launching new strikes without congressional authorization and restarting a war that has raised gas prices, killed Americans, and hurt the economy. The U.S. and Iran must return to a ceasefire."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) weighed in Wednesday afternoon: "Donald Trump's war with Iran has cost American lives, and jacked up prices on gas and groceries for millions across the globe. Congress voted against this war. Congress shouldn't allow Donald Trump to continue it."
Key House members have also spoken out since the strikes resumed Tuesday. Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said that "Trump is extending his disastrous, illegal war with Iran. Congress and the American people have demanded the war end. Instead, Trump is choosing higher gas prices, more lives lost, and more instability. Outrageous."
Noting the new attacks and Trump's ceasefire comment, CPC Chair Emerita Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) similarly stressed that "this is another escalation in a war that the American people do not want. The House and Senate passed bipartisan war powers resolutions for this exact reason. This war must end NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US and Iran Test Each Other's Red Lines Over Strait of Hormuz
This is a dangerous game.
Jul 08, 2026
For the second time since the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed, Washington and Tehran have slipped back into direct military confrontation. The United States struck “80 targets in Iran with precision munitions” after Iranian forces fired on several ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz without prior coordination with Tehran. The scale of the American strikes reportedly far exceeded the previous U.S.-Iran exchange, suggesting that Washington sought not merely to retaliate but to reestablish deterrence. The United States also reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil sales, reversing one of the central concessions of the MOU. The IRGC, in turn, claimed to have attacked 85 US military sites across the region, including the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain and Ali Al-Salem Air Base in Kuwait, and said eight were destroyed.
At the heart of the dispute are two competing interpretations of the MOU. Tehran's reading is that while the Strait of Hormuz is to remain open, all commercial traffic during the 60-day interim period must be coordinated with Iran as the parties negotiate a permanent maritime arrangement. Washington, by contrast, interprets an "open" Strait to mean that vessels may transit either the Iranian or Omani shipping lanes without coordinating with Iran.
For Tehran, this is not a technical disagreement but a strategic one. Iranian officials fear the United States is using the MOU to erode Iran's control over the Strait by rejecting any requirement for coordination and, in effect, establishing an alternative corridor that could remain open even if war resumes. Such an arrangement would deprive Iran of what many of its strategists regard as its single most important source of leverage in a future conflict: the credible ability to disrupt maritime traffic through Hormuz. From Tehran's perspective, commercial shipping can resume without surrendering that leverage—but only if all vessel movements continue to be coordinated with Iran, thereby reinforcing its nominal authority over the waterway.
Washington counters that the text of the MOU does not explicitly require ships to obtain Iranian authorization before transiting the Strait. Instead, it assigns Iran responsibility for ensuring the safe passage of commercial vessels, a distinction the United States argues falls short of granting Tehran operational control over all maritime traffic. Paragraph 5 of the MOU states:
Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days.
Following the previous round of fighting, the two sides explored a compromise under which commercial vessels would coordinate their transit with both Iran and a designated Gulf Cooperation Council state. Under such an arrangement, ships would notify Tehran while also reporting to a GCC maritime authority, balancing Iran's demand for oversight with Washington's desire to avoid granting Tehran exclusive control. The talks, however, appear never to have been finalized before they were suspended for the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
During that pause, several commercial vessels—with their AIS transponders switched off—attempted to transit the southern shipping corridor without notifying Tehran. Iran viewed these voyages as a direct challenge to its interpretation of the MOU and responded with force.
Both sides are clearly testing each other's red lines. If the dispute were solely about ensuring the safe passage of commercial shipping, vessels could simply transit through the Iranian shipping lane. Tehran has not prevented ships from using the northern corridor. Instead, the insistence on using the southern corridor without notifying Iran appears designed to challenge Tehran's claim that it exercises authority over the Strait—a claim the United States and most Gulf states have long rejected. Beyond questions of transit tolls or administrative fees, no country in the region is eager to legitimize Iranian control over one of the world's most strategically important waterways. The current confrontation is therefore less about navigation than about sovereignty and strategic leverage.
The compromise discussed before the talks were suspended offers a sensible way out. Requiring vessels to notify both Iran and a designated GCC maritime authority would defer the sovereignty dispute without prejudging its outcome, allowing commercial traffic to continue while negotiations over a permanent arrangement proceed. Sacrificing the entire MOU—and the far more consequential regional framework it could ultimately produce—over the question of who nominally manages the Strait for the next few weeks would be a costly and unnecessary mistake.
The question now is whether the dual-notification arrangement can still be revived after the exchange of fire over the past 12 hours, or whether this latest escalation has closed the diplomatic window altogether. The coming hours are likely to provide the answer.
One final observation: by responding with both military force and the reimposition of sanctions on Iranian oil exports, Washington appears intent on establishing escalation dominance—not merely deterring further Iranian action but demonstrating its willingness to raise the costs far more sharply than Tehran. The contrast with the first post-MOU confrontation in the Strait is striking. This time, the US response has been substantially more severe, suggesting that Washington is seeking to redefine the deterrence equation before negotiations can resume.
There is, however, a danger in Washington's decision to rescind the general license permitting the purchase of Iranian oil. The license was intended to serve as one of the MOU's principal incentives for Tehran to remain committed to the agreement. But an incentive is only as valuable as its credibility.
Even before this latest escalation, Iran had struggled to attract new buyers. Many governments and companies were reluctant to enter long-term arrangements because they feared negotiations would collapse and the license would expire without renewal. That uncertainty alone diminished the commercial value of the concession.
From Washington’s perspective, Iran’s alleged violation of the MOU is serious and warrants a response. But if the United States is seen as issuing and withdrawing the license too readily, potential buyers may conclude that access to Iranian oil is too politically volatile to justify the risk. That would weaken one of Washington’s most important sources of leverage. The less valuable the license becomes in the marketplace, the less valuable it becomes at the negotiating table—and the less the United States can demand in return for restoring it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Don't Want to Deal With Them': Trump Declares Iran Truce Over as US Resumes Bombing
The US president, who launched the illegal and costly war earlier this year, attacked Iranian leaders as "scum" and "sick people."
Jul 08, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday said the interim ceasefire agreement designed to provide space for a lasting peace agreement with Iran was "over," remarks that came just hours after the American military launched a new wave of airstrikes against Iran.
Speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Ankara, Türkiye, Trump attacked Iranian leaders as "scum" and "sick people" and dismissed the idea of returning to negotiations as "a waste of time."
"To me, I think it's over," said the US president, referring to the temporary ceasefire established under the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed last month. "I don't want to deal with them."
Trump's comments, which sent oil prices surging and intensified fears of a resumption of deadly all-out war in the Middle East, came after the US Central Command launched what it characterized as "powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping" in the Strait of Hormuz.
Earlier on Tuesday, the Trump administration revoked a waiver allowing Iran to export its oil—a key component of the faltering MOU, which Iran and the US signed less than a month ago. Iran's Foreign Ministry decried the Trump administration's move as a violation of the MOU and "yet another indication of the US administration’s bad faith, inconsistency, and unreliability," according to a statement published by Iran's Fars News Agency.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Wednesday that it hit more than 80 US military targets in the Middle East in response to the Trump administration's latest strikes.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, warned in a statement late Tuesday that "it is critical that Iran and the US recommit to the terms of the MOU and get negotiations back on track before it is too late."
"The US has consistently pushed the boundaries of the agreement and put it on uncertain footing, from the failure to rein in Israel’s actions in Lebanon to the establishment of the ‘alternative corridor’ in the Strait outside of Iranian purview," said Abdi. "Iran believes this is an attempt to relitigate the MOU that it says recognized Iran’s authority to manage the waterway. So long as Iran perceives the US as seeking to weaken its position and eventually return to war, negotiations are likely to take a back seat to more fighting."
"As disastrous as this war has been for American interests thus far, President Trump appeared to have found an off-ramp before it triggered uncontrollable economic fallout or escalated to a ground war that could become a generational quagmire," Abdi added. "Now, after having narrowly avoided a worst-case scenario, the president risks being pulled back in and returning us to an unwinnable war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular