With Propagandists in Overdrive, Opponents of 'Iraq War 2.0' Hold Steady: No US Attack on Iran

The United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, is once again barreling headlong toward a war of choice in the Middle East, one cheered on by many of the same hawks who enthusiastically supported the disastrous invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.

The buildup to a possibly imminent U.S. attack on Iran bears striking similarities to the propaganda campaign that preceded the Iraq invasion, with advocates of American intervention claiming—falsely, according to U.S. intelligence and international inspectors—that the Iranian government is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, and that regime change is a necessary and desirable outcome.

The resemblance has not been lost on those steadfastly warning against U.S. involvement in Israel's illegal assault on Iran, which has thus far killed more than 580 people and intensified fears of all-out war in the region.

"The same cheerleaders for past bloodbaths strut around advocating yet more slaughter as though recent history never happened, while opponents of dropping bombs on terrified civilians are once more smeared as dangerous extremists," Guardian columnist Owen Jones wrote Wednesday. "The actual mad men are those in power. And unless they finally face a reckoning, the abyss awaits."

David Vine, a political anthropologist and board member of the Costs of War Project, wrote for Responsible Statecraft earlier this week that "the unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran is the 2003 Iraq War 2.0, except it has the potential to be far, far more catastrophic than the absolute catastrophe that was Iraq."

"Like President George W. Bush's 2003 war on Iraq," wrote Vine, "the war on Iran is an unprovoked, illegal, offensive, unilateral war of aggression, potentially aimed at regime change, and sold to the public based on lies about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction."

This time around, the lies have been echoed by a president who campaigned on a pledge to "return the world to peace" and keep the U.S. out of conflicts overseas. On Tuesday, Trump publicly rejected the assessment of his handpicked top intelligence official, telling reporters that he believes Iran was "very close to having" a nuclear weapon, a false claim that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been peddling for decades.

"I don't care what she said," Trump declared, brushing aside Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's March testimony before Congress that Iran "is not building a nuclear weapon."

"The United States must not be dragged into another of Netanyahu's wars—not militarily or financially."

Assessments from U.S. intelligence agencies and the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, have not stopped rabidly pro-war lawmakers such as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) from pushing Trump to wade into the conflict with military force.

"Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat," Graham said in an appearance on Fox News. "If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations."

But the march to war with Iran has also drawn significant opposition, bolstered by fresh opinion polls showing that a majority of the American public—including those who voted for Trump in last year's presidential election—oppose U.S. military action against Iran.

In both the House and the Senate, bipartisan efforts are underway to prevent Trump from attacking Iran without congressional approval, and Democratic leaders who have been mealy-mouthed in their responses to the escalating crisis have faced swift backlash.

After Democratic Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer said Tuesday he believed "Congress and Senate Democrats, if necessary, will not hesitate to exercise our authority" on the matter, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif)—who is co-sponsoring a war powers resolution in the House to prevent Trump from launching an attack on Iran—asked: "What in the world does this mean Sen. Schumer?"

"This is why your numbers are toxic with our base," added Khanna. "They want us to be the anti-war party again."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of new legislation in the Senate that would bar Trump from using federal funds for an unauthorized attack on Iran, said in a video posted online Tuesday that "supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake."

"The United States must not be dragged into another of Netanyahu's wars—not militarily or financially," said Sanders. "The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: There can be no offensive use of military force—against Iran or any other country—without an explicit authorization from Congress. No such authorization exists, and any U.S. involvement would therefore be illegal."

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) also spoke out against those rushing the country to war in an appearance on CNN Tuesday night.

"I do not think there's support in this country for the United States to go to war again in the Middle East," Murphy said. "And I would remind the president that he can't take any offensive action against Iran without coming to Congress first. He has no leeway here. The constitution requires him to get an authorization of military force from Congress."

As Israel and Iran traded attacks for the sixth consecutive day on Wednesday, Trump confirmed to reporters that he's considering a U.S. strike on Iran. But in a characteristically rambling way, he also left the door open to a diplomatic resolution, something that Israeli leaders have openly rejected.

"I may do it," the president said of U.S. military intervention. "I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do."

"Why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?" Trump asked, ignoring the fact that the U.S. and Iran were in the midst of nuclear talks when Israel attacked last week.

Asked whether it's too late for negotiations, Trump replied, "Nothing's too late."

The president's comments came a day after he demanded "unconditional surrender" from the Iranian government, drawing a sharp rebuke from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"The U.S. president threatens us. With his absurd rhetoric, he demands that the Iranian people surrender to him," said Khamenei in a televised address on Wednesday. "They should make threats against those who are afraid of being threatened. The Iranian nation isn’t frightened by such threats."

Khamenei said that "the Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage."

"The U.S. entering in this matter is 100% to its own detriment," he added. "The damage it will suffer will be far greater than any harm that Iran may encounter."

Anti-war voices in the U.S. have also warned of the potentially devastating human consequences of a possible war with Iran—with organizers urging Americans to lobby their members of Congress to put a stop to any war against Iran before it begins.

"As always, it will not be the U.S. foreign policy elites who end up paying the terrible price of another war of choice, but American service members and families along with countless civilians thousands of miles away," Nancy Okail, president and CEO of the Center for International Policy, said in a statement Wednesday.

"This is potentially a once-in-a-generation moment that could impact our country's trajectory as the American wars in Vietnam and Iraq did," Okail added. "Politicians and other decisionmakers should remember the lessons of those fateful conflicts, stand firmly against militarism, and press for a diplomatic resolution to this crisis."