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
Daily Feature
Lone Democrat—Jared Golden—Helps GOP Tank Another Iran War Powers Resolution
"It is deeply disappointing that Rep. Golden joined Republicans in opposing efforts to stop further escalation," said one peace advocate. "Democratic leadership’s handling of this moment is also concerning."
Apr 16, 2026
With the decisive support of one Democrat—Rep. Jared Golden of Maine—the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Thursday voted down a war powers resolution aimed at ending President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran, over six weeks after it began.
The final vote was 213-214, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joining nearly every House Democrat in supporting the resolution, which would have forced Trump to withdraw American troops from hostilities in Iran absent congressional authorization. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) voted present and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) didn't vote, despite criticizing the war and telling reporters last month that she would "most likely" support the Democratic resolution.
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, Democratic leaders—including the resolution's chief sponsor, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York—faced backlash for slowwalking the legislative effort to end the war even as it appeared that momentum was on their side. Earlier this month, the House Democratic leadership opted to punt the war powers vote until after spring recess, during which the Trump administration and Iran's government reached a tenuous ceasefire deal.
Three of the four House Democrats who voted against an Iran war powers resolution in early March flipped their votes on Thursday: Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Greg Landsman of Ohio, and Juan Vargas of California. Golden, who also voted against the earlier resolution, is not running for reelection.
"While we are encouraged to see growing support," said Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian, "it is deeply disappointing that Rep. Golden joined Republicans in opposing efforts to stop further escalation, casting a decisive vote against the resolution."
"Democratic leadership’s handling of this moment is also concerning," said Kharrazian. "They previously declined to force a war powers vote before a critical period of escalation before recess, citing a lack of votes. Now they have moved forward under less favorable conditions, including during sensitive ceasefire negotiations, but still without the votes they previously claimed were necessary before proceeding, and with a changed balance in the House. That inconsistency raises a serious question about what is driving leadership’s priorities: strategy or politics."
"We urge members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, to support sustained diplomatic efforts to resolve this conflict," Kharrazian added. "The American people overwhelmingly reject this war and want a diplomatic end to it.”
The House voted marked the sixth time an Iran-related war powers resolution has failed in the House or Senate since Trump started bombing on February 28.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said Thursday that he supported the war powers effort on Thursday because "Trump’s war of choice was not authorized by Congress, was started without a plan or an exit strategy, and has achieved none of the contradictory objectives used to justify it."
"Trump’s war in Iran is deeply unpopular," Pocan added, "and it’s time to end what never should have started."
Ryan Costello, policy director with the National Iranian American Council, said in a statement that "the narrow defeat of a resolution to definitively end the war on Iran is another tragic missed opportunity, but the gap between public opposition to the war and votes to end it is narrowing."
"All but one House Democrat voted unanimously in support of the resolution but were joined by just one Republican," said Costello. "Golden will need to answer to his Maine constituents, many of whom are veterans and pro-peace Americans who question why Washington so consistently sends brave servicemembers into ill-advised, disastrous wars of choice that kill civilians and sabotage the global economy. So too do all of the Republicans who chose again not to use their power to convince President Trump to take an off-ramp and end this disastrous war that puts Benjamin Netanyahu’s dreams, not the American people and American security, first."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Thanks to Trump's Iran War, Big Oil Raking in $30 Million Per Hour in Windfall Profits
“Moments of global crisis continue to translate into bumper profits for oil majors while ordinary people pay the price."
Apr 15, 2026
US President Donald Trump's unprovoked war of choice in Iran has been a goldmine for the fossil fuels industry, which is earning massive windfall profits thanks to the rise in the price of petroleum.
An analysis published by The Guardian on Wednesday estimated that the 100 biggest oil and gas companies have collectively raked in an extra $30 million per hour since Trump launched his war with Iran without any congressional authorization in late February.
In just the first month of the conflict, The Guardian reported, Big Oil made $23 billion in windfall profits, and the industry is projected to haul in an additional $234 billion in windfall profits by the end of the year if the price of oil stays in the $100 range.
The top beneficiaries of the Iran conflict are Saudi Aramco, which is projected to earn $25.5 billion in windfall profits by the end of the year; Kuwait Petroleum Corp., which is projected to earn $12.1 billion; and ExxonMobil, which is projected to earn $11 billion.
"The excess profits come from the pockets of ordinary people as they pay high prices to fill up their vehicles and power their homes, as well as from businesses incurring higher energy bills," The Guardian noted. "Dozens of countries have cut fuel taxes to help struggling consumers, meaning those nations, including Australia, South Africa, Italy, Brazil and Zambia, are raising less money for public services."
The Guardian's analysis was conducted by climate watchdog Global Witness, using data from intelligence provider Rystad Energy.
Patrick Galey, head of news investigations at Global Witness, told The Guardian that Big Oil's windfall profits should be a wakeup call to the world about the dangers of relying on fossil fuels.
"Moments of global crisis continue to translate into bumper profits for oil majors while ordinary people pay the price," Galey said. "Until governments kick their fossil fuel addiction, all of our spending power will be held hostage to the whims of strongmen."
Climate advocates have for months been calling for a windfall profits tax on Big Oil during the Iran War as a way to retrieve some of the money consumers have lost during the conflict.
Earlier this month, the climate advocacy organization 350.org renewed its previous call to slap fossil fuel companies with a windfall profits tax, and then invest the revenue into renewable energy sources to provide real long-term relief to global consumers.
Beth Walker, an energy policy expert at climate change think tank E3G, also recommended a windfall profits tax with the aim of ending reliance on dirty energy sources.
"Governments should use taxes on windfall profits to accelerate the transition to green energy," said Walker, "rather than deepen dependence on fossil fuels.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Very Dark Picture': IMF Warns Trump's Iran War Could Unleash Global Recession
One expert called the new IMF forecast "extremely concerning for the global economy," noting that "the most dire impacts of our economic situation will be felt by the poor and the vulnerable."
Apr 14, 2026
The International Monetary Fund warned Tuesday that the US-Israeli war on Iran could slow global economic growth, stoke inflation, and increase the possibility of a worldwide recession and energy crisis.
The illegal war of choice on Iran being waged by US President Donald Trump and the government of fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already had wide-ranging negative impacts on the global economy, from soaring fuel prices caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to supply chain disruptions and financial market volatility.
However, a major global economic crisis has thus far been averted. That could soon change.
"Despite major trade disruptions and policy uncertainty, last year ended on an upbeat note," International Monetary Fund director of research Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas wrote in an analysis of the IMF's latest World Economic Outlook report. "The private sector adapted to a changing business environment, while powerful offsets came from lower US tariffs than originally announced, some fiscal support, and favorable financial conditions coupled with strong productivity gains and a tech boom."
"Despite some downside risks, the momentum was expected to carry over into 2026, lifting the pre-conflict global growth forecast to 3.4%," Gourinchas continued. "War in the Middle East has halted this momentum. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz and serious damage to critical facilities in a region central to global hydrocarbon supply raise the prospect of a major energy crisis should hostilities continue."
The IMF said that even if the war ends quickly, lasting damage to the world's economy will still happen.
According to the IMF report:
Under the assumption of a limited conflict, global growth is projected at 3.1% in 2026 and 3.2% in 2027, below recent outcomes and well under pre-pandemic averages. Global inflation is expected to tick up in 2026 and resume its decline in 2027. Pressures are concentrated in emerging market and developing economies, especially commodity importers with preexisting vulnerabilities. Risks are decisively on the downside. A prolonged conflict, deeper geopolitical fragmentation, disappointment over [artificial intelligence]-driven productivity, or renewed trade tensions could weaken growth and unsettle markets. High public debt and eroded policy buffers add vulnerability. Policies should foster adaptability, enhance credibility, and reinforce international cooperation.
The IMF said that "the shock’s ultimate magnitude will depend on the conflict’s duration and scale—and how quickly energy production and shipment normalize once hostilities end," and that effects will vary by location.
"Countries will feel the impact differently," Gourinchas wrote. "As in past commodity-price surges, importers are highly exposed. Low-income and developing economies—especially those with vulnerabilities and limited buffers—are likely to be hit hardest. Gulf energy exporters will face economic fallout from damaged infrastructure, production disruptions, export constraints, and weaker tourism and business activity. Remittances will fall in countries that supply migrant workers to the region."
Eric LeCompte, executive director of the religious development group Jubilee USA Network and a United Nations finance expert, called the new IMF forecast "extremely concerning for the global economy," lamenting that "the most dire impacts of our economic situation will be felt by the poor and the vulnerable."
The new report comes as the IMF's annual Spring Meetings are underway in Washington, DC.
“World leaders coming to Washington are receiving a very dark picture of the global economy,” said LeCompte. “The war is causing greater poverty and increases in our fuel and food costs."
Other groups have also warned of the adverse economic effects of the US-Israeli war on Iran.
Ben May, Bridget Payne, and Paul Moroz of Oxford Economics recently published a report warning that a longer war in Iran "could tip the global economy into recession."
In such a situation, "the Gulf states suffer most acutely—GDP down over 8% in 2026—before rebounding sharply as production recovers," they wrote. "Advanced Asian economies, which are especially reliant on Gulf oil, take a heavy blow from energy import cost surges and supply chain disruption."
"Europe faces a painful squeeze on gas and electricity," the trio added. "The US fares somewhat better given its domestic energy production, but an equity market decline of nearly 20% weighs heavily on consumer spending."
Some US-based organizations have focused on the war's domestic economic impacts.
Dean Baker, a senior fellow at the Center for Economic Policy Research, published an analysis earlier this month asserting that "making enemies makes us poorer."
"Secretary of Defense (or War) Pete Hegseth seems to be having a really great time killing people in Iran, but his live action video games come at a big cost—not just in lives, but in budget dollars," Baker wrote. "To be clear, the main reason to oppose this pointless war is its impact on the people of Iran and elsewhere in the region. But it also has a huge economic cost that is seriously underappreciated."
"In addition to reducing our security and jeopardizing the well-being of people around the world, Donald Trump’s belligerence will cost us a huge amount of money," he said. Focusing on US military spending, Baker noted that "Trump wants the country to spend 5% of GDP, or $1.5 trillion a year, on the military. This comes to $12,000 per household."
Trump and his Republican Party are seeking to offset some of their record military spending with devastating cuts to social programs upon which tens of millions of Americans rely. Already reeling from the biggest cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program spending in those programs' histories, Trump’s budget request for fiscal year 2027 contains $73 billion in total reductions in nondefense spending.
"It is striking to see that Congress might be willing to quickly cough up this money," said Baker, referring to military funding, "when it has refused far smaller sums that could have made a huge difference in the lives of tens of millions of people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran's Top Diplomat Says Trump Team Sabotaged Talks With Deal 'Inches Away'
"Zero lessons earned," said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Apr 13, 2026
Iran's foreign minister said Sunday that the Trump administration's representatives derailed marathon talks in Pakistan's capital with maximalist demands, just as the two sides were "inches away" from a preliminary agreement to end the six-week conflict.
"In intensive talks at the highest level in 47 years, Iran engaged with US in good faith to end war," Abbas Araghchi wrote on social media. "But when just inches away from 'Islamabad [Memorandum of Understanding],' we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade. Zero lessons earned. Good will begets good will. Enmity begets enmity."
The failed weekend talks marked the second time since February that US negotiators have been accused of sabotaging formal negotiations despite participants believing a deal was within reach. Oman's foreign minister, who mediated previous talks, said hours before the US and Israel started bombing Iran on February 28 that "we have already achieved quite a substantial progress in the direction of a deal."
The Trump administration's negotiating team, which consisted principally of Vice President JD Vance and special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, reportedly set down numerous "red lines" during the Islamabad talks this past weekend, including demanding that Iran end all uranium enrichment—which Iran has a right to conduct under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—and dismantle its major nuclear energy facilities.
"We just could not get to a situation where the Iranians were willing to accept our terms," Vance told reporters on Sunday. "I think that we were quite flexible."
US President Donald Trump claimed on social media that "the meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not."
Iran's top negotiator, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, wrote following the talks that "due to the experiences of the two previous wars, we have no trust in the opposing side."
After the single day of talks faltered, Trump announced a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, an illegal act of war that critics warned could plunge the two sides into a deeper conflict.
"It is concerning that Vance already suggests that the US has put forward a final and best offer, suggesting that the US is still trying to dictate terms rather than negotiate a better future," said Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council. "We urge President Trump to walk back his blockade threat and for the US and Iran to reengage and consider implementing practical steps where there is agreement to lower tensions and build on this fragile pause to the war."
The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that Trump and his advisers "are looking at resuming limited military strikes in Iran" on top of the naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which the president said is set to begin at 10 am ET.
"Trump could also resume a full-fledged bombing campaign," the Journal noted—though unnamed officials said that option was "less likely."
US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in an interview on Sunday that American lawmakers "need to do whatever we can to get [Trump] out" of office, calling the president's war on Iran "illegal," "a war crime," "immoral," and disastrous for the American public.
"Impeachment, invoke the 25th Amendment, push for him to resign, whatever it is," Jayapal told MS NOW. "This is so grave of a situation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular