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
For Immediate Release
March, 20 2020, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Mana Mostatabi, 202.386.6325 x103, mana@niacaction.org
NIAC Action and 25 Organizations Urge Trump to Ease Iran Sanctions to Combat Coronavirus
In light of the increasingly dire situation in Iran as the country combats the COVID-19 pandemic, NIAC Action and 25 other organizations - including J Street, Truman National Security Project, MoveOn, Win Without War and Ploughshares Fund - in calling on President Trump, Sec. Mnuchin, and Sec. Pompeo to loosen the administration's crippling sanctions regime on Iran for 120 days in order to aid the Iranian people's fight against the virus.
WASHINGTON
In light of the increasingly dire situation in Iran as the country combats the COVID-19 pandemic, NIAC Action and 25 other organizations - including J Street, Truman National Security Project, MoveOn, Win Without War and Ploughshares Fund - in calling on President Trump, Sec. Mnuchin, and Sec. Pompeo to loosen the administration's crippling sanctions regime on Iran for 120 days in order to aid the Iranian people's fight against the virus.
The combined groups, representing millions of Americans, signals a strong desire for the administration to reevaluate their Iran policy in the wake of the pandemic. NIAC Action Executive Director Jamal Abdi released the following statement accompanying the letter:
"The Trump administration's current unwillingness to significantly ease sanctions on Iran during this time of crisis is like rubbing salt into a gaping wound. With hospitals overrun and Iranian doctors struggling to procure necessary equipment, the U.S. must be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
"As COVID-19 rips through country after country, Iran's experience has been particularly devastating. While advanced medical systems across Western Europe seem to be collapsing under the weight of patients infected with the virus, Iranians have had to contend with both their own government's negligence and crushing sanctions that slow the response and punish ordinary Iranians.
"Humanitarian assistance shouldn't come with strings attached, and we are all at risk from the pandemic regardless of nationality. We call on the administration to ease its sanctions policy so that all resources are available to fight the pandemic in this dark hour for the Iranian people."
The text of the letter is below:
March 20, 2020
Dear President Trump, Sec. Mnuchin and Sec. Pompeo
Containing the deadly COVID-19 pandemic will require a global effort with nations deploying all available resources at their disposal. Iran has become an epicenter for the outbreak, with 1,433 deaths and nearly 20,000 infected. To help stem the continued spread of the virus inside Iran and beyond, we urge you to issue a time-bound suspension of those U.S. sanctions that make it harder for ordinary Iranians to secure basic goods and services to weather the crisis. Doing so would not just serve U.S. interests in helping contain the further spread of the virus, but would also be a powerful humanitarian gesture to the more than 80 million Iranians suffering under the pandemic.
We appreciate that some limited steps have already been taken, including licensing humanitarian trade with the Central Bank of Iran and encouraging foreign banks and governments to establish humanitarian channels with Iran. Yet, sanctions have harmed the public health sector in Iran by slowing or entirely blocking the sale of medicine, respirators, and hygienic supplies needed to mitigate the epidemic, and broad sectoral sanctions continue to negatively impact ordinary Iranians by shuttering civilian-owned businesses and decimating the value of the rial, making it harder to procure food, medicine, and other basic needs.
As a result, we recommend suspending many of the sanctions imposed by your administration since May 2018 for a period of at least 120 days, including those sanctions affecting Iran's financial and oil sectors and its civilian industries. Doing so would offer significant relief for the Iranian people at a critical time.
COVID-19 is a shared threat, requiring global solutions. Easing sanctions is one simple step that can be taken to serve the interests of the Iranian people and public health across the globe.
Sincerely,
American Friends Service Committee
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
CODEPINK
Council for a Livable World
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Defending Rights & Dissent
Demand Progress Education Fund
Foreign Policy for America
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Greenpeace USA
Institute for Policy Studies, New Internationalism Project
J Street
Just Foreign Policy
MoveOn
Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
National Iranian American Council Action (NIAC Action)
Peace Corps Iran Association
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Ploughshares Fund
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Progress America
Project South
Project Blueprint
Truman Center for National Security
Win Without War
Women's Action for New Directions (WAND)
NIAC Action is the grassroots, civic action organization committed to advancing peace and championing the priorities of the Iranian-American community. We are a nonpartisan nonprofit and the 501(c)4 sister organization of the National Iranian American Council, which works to strengthen the Iranian-American community and promote greater understanding between the American and Iranian people.
LATEST NEWS
GOP Senators Break Ranks With Trump to Help Advance Venezuela War Powers Resolution
"With this historic, bipartisan vote to prevent further war in Venezuela, Congress has begun the long-overdue work of reasserting its constitutional role in decisions of war and peace," said one observer.
Jan 08, 2026
Amid President Donald Trump's admission that his intervention in Venezuela could last years, US senators voted Thursday to advance legislation aimed at blocking the president's use of military forces against the oil-rich South American nation.
Senators voted 52-47 to advance a war powers resolution introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) "to block the use of the US armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress" as required by the 1973 War Powers Act.
The Senate will now continue debating the measure, which, if passed by both the upper chamber and the House of Representatives, would be subject to a likely veto by Trump—who has sunk two previous war powers resolutions unrelated to Venezuela.
In addition to Paul, four other GOP senators voted to advance the resolution: Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Todd Young of Indiana. While lawmakers often assent during the procedural phase, only to cast ballots against legislation during final votes, at least one of the GOP senators signaled they will vote the same as they did Thursday.
"While I support the operation to seize [Venezuelan President] Nicolás Maduro, which was extraordinary in its precision and complexity, I do not support committing additional US forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization," Collins said in a statement, referring to Trump's threats to acquire the Danish territory by force if he deems it necessary. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) this week introduced a bill that would ban the president from any such action.
"I believe invoking the War Powers Act at this moment is necessary, given the president’s comments about the possibility of ‘boots on the ground’ and a sustained engagement ‘running’ Venezuela, with which I do not agree," added Collins, who is facing a serious challenge for her Senate seat from candidates including former Maine Gov. Janet Mills and progressive Graham Platner, both Democrats who oppose US military action in Venezuela.
At the time of bipartisan war powers resolution's introduction last month, Trump had not yet attacked Venezuelan territory, although he had threatened to do so, deployed warships and thousands of US troops to the region, authorized covert CIA action to topple Maduro, and ordered the bombing of boats the administration claimed—without evidence—were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
However, Trump dramatically escalated US intervention in Venezuela, first with a December drone strike on a port facility and then by bombing and invading the country and abducting Maduro and his wife.
Asked during a Wednesday interview with the New York Times whether the US intervention in Venezuela would last a year, or longer, Trump replied, "I would say much longer," explaining that "we will rebuild" the country "in a very profitable way," including by "taking oil" from it.
The specter of yet another US "forever war" like the ongoing open-ended War on Terror that's left nearly 1 million people dead in at least seven countries since 2001 has prompted the introduction of several congressional war powers resolutions. So far, none have passed.
“If there was ever a moment for the Senate to find its voice, it is now," Schumer said on the Senate floor ahead of Thursday's vote. "Today, the Senate must assert the authority given to it on matters of war and peace. We must send Donald Trump a clear message on behalf of the American people: No more endless wars. Donald Trump’s ready for an endless war in Venezuela, and lord knows where else. The American people are not.”
Kaine made it clear during his pre-vote Senate floor remarks that the resolution does not challenge the "execution of a valid arrest warrant against Nicolás Maduro," which—despite experts concurring that the invasion and abduction were illegal—he called "good for America and good for Venezuela."
However, Kaine said, given that Trump's intervention "will go on for a long period of time," US troops "should not be used for hostilities in Venezuela without a vote of Congress as the Constitution requires.”
“No one has ever regretted a vote that just says, Mr. President, before you send our sons and daughters to war, come to Congress," he added.
However, such votes have very rarely succeeded in stopping any president from proceeding with military action.
In 2019 during Trump's first term, the House and Senate both passed a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to cut off US military support for the Saudi-led coalition’s atrocity-laden war on Yemen. Trump vetoed the measure, and senators lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override his move.
The following year, both houses of Congress passed another war powers resolution—this one introduced in the Senate by Kaine—to terminate military action against Iran. But Trump again vetoed the legislation, and the Senate could not muster the two-thirds majority required for an override. After returning to office last year, Trump ordered sweeping attacks on Iran—and is threatening to do so again.
While Trump took to his Truth Social network to blast the five Republican senators who voted to advance the war powers resolution on Thursday and Vice President JD Vance called the War Powers Act "fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law," progressive and anti-war advocacy groups hailed the advancement.
"With this historic, bipartisan vote to prevent further war in Venezuela, Congress has begun the long-overdue work of reasserting its constitutional role in decisions of war and peace," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement.
"We commend the leadership of Sens. Kaine and Paul in forcing this vote, and we thank Sens. Collins, Young, Hawley, and Murkowski for their principled votes," Kharrazian continued. "Senators should move quickly to adopt the resolution to prevent further unauthorized military escalation and the House should follow suit."
"Congress should also make clear, using the full force of the law, that no president has the authority to unilaterally launch hostilities anywhere in the world," he added, "whether in Venezuela or against other countries the administration has openly threatened, including Cuba, Greenland, Colombia, and Iran.”
"The dam has broken." Afghanistan War Veteran Max Rose applauds the Senate’s bipartisan vote advancing the War Powers Resolution. He calls it a stunning rebuke of Trump’s unilateral wars, reminding the President that the military belongs to America, not him.
[image or embed]
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) January 8, 2026 at 9:05 AM
Jose Vasquez, executive director of Common Defense and an Army veteran, said, "The vote is a victory for the Constitution, the stability of the region, and for the veterans and military families who organized, spoke out, and refused to accept another reckless slide toward forever war."
"By drawing this vote, Congress sends an essential message that accountability still matters and that no one person or presidential administration can send Americans to war," he added. "Veterans will remain organized and vigilant, but today shows what is possible when Congress listens to the will of the people and leans toward peace rather than war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Estimated Cost of Trump Naval Blockade of Venezuela Climbs Toward $1 Billion
"US military power is being used as a de facto security force for the president's corporate donors and their oil interests, leaving the American taxpayer to effectively subsidize a security force for Big Oil."
Jan 08, 2026
As Congress weighs action to rein in the Trump administration's assault on Venezuela—as demanded by people across the United States and Latin America—Fortune on Thursday highlighted the rising cost of just the US oil blockade on the country.
The ongoing US naval blockade "has cost an estimated $700 million and counting, with two more oil tankers seized January 7, as President Donald Trump aims to sell more Venezuelan crude oil to American refineries and convince U.S. oil companies to return to embattled nation," the outlet reported.
That's based on a Center for a New American Security analysis that put the cost of operating the USS Gerald R. Ford and its aircraft carrier strike group in the region since October at more than $9 million a day—which does not account for Trump's illegal strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats or the weekend abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
Fortune's article followed December reporting on "the lopsided cost of Operation Southern Spear" from Defense One:
The estimates for every hour of the carrier’s operation is roughly $333,000, while each escort consumes a comparatively cheaper $9,200 per hour.
For the aircraft, the cost per flight hour is roughly $40,000 for the F-35s and the AC-130J; $29,900 for the P-8s; and $3,500 for the Reaper drones.
Then there are the munitions used in the attacks themselves. Analysis of the strike videos show that U.S. forces have fired Hellfire missiles (about $150,000 to $220,000 apiece) AGM-176 Griffins ($127,333 in FY2019 costs), and perhaps GBU-39B Small Diameter Bombs (roughly $40,000 each).
And on the personnel side, there is the pay and benefits for the roughly 15,000 US service members who have been deployed so far in the operation, including 5,000 ashore in Puerto Rico and 2,200 Marines aboard ships.
As for "Operation Absolute Resolve," as the US called the mission to abduct Maduro and Flores, the administration has not disclosed costs, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that nearly 200 special forces took part in the deadly raid.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "the military had been readying for days to execute the mission," and "in the run-up, Delta Force commandos rehearsed the extraction inside a full-scale model of Mr. Maduro's compound that the Joint Special Operations Command had built in Kentucky."
After being abducted, Maduro and his wife pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in a federal court in New York City. Trump has continued to make clear that his costly operations are not actually about drugs, but seizing Venezuelan oil. Senate Democrats are now probing possible dealings between his administration and fossil fuel executives related to the US attack on Saturday.
As the U.S. pursues regime change in Venezuela, it's worth remembering that the U.S.-led post-9/11 wars left millions dead and cost U.S. taxpayers trillions, with no strategic benefit to the citizens of the U.S. or any other nation. www.wsj.com/world/americ...
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) January 5, 2026 at 12:05 PM
On Tuesday, a pair of experts at the Center for American Progress (CAP) noted that the fossil fuel industry gave at least $96 million to Trump's 2024 campaign and super political action committees, "over $100 million to Trump allies and ads supporting policies championed by these allies, and more through undisclosed dark money channels," and then "contributed at least $41 million to either the inaugural fund or Trump's super PAC after the election."
"However, it is unclear whether many American oil companies actually view Venezuela as an attractive prospect: With prices hovering around $60 per barrel of oil, companies have been reluctant to make major new investments," explained CAP's Damian Murphy Allison McManus. "Venezuela's oil infrastructure will require billions of dollars to update in the medium term, and the political instability and potential security breakdowns that come from removing a head of state create a poor environment for long-term investments."
"That isn't to say that companies are completely uninterested: Some US oil companies are looking to collect billions of dollars from the country over decades-old seized oil assets," they continued. "To sweeten the deal, Trump recently has floated the prospect of subsidizing companies for rebuilding infrastructure. Still, this tepid response from the industry only underscores the chaotic and reckless nature of the administration’s foreign policymaking, which has adopted an 'act first, plan later' approach."
The pair also pointed out that "Trump has repeatedly suggested that boots on the ground could be used to guarantee access to oil resources, with the current buildup of forces signaling that a 'second wave' of military action is on standby. In essence, US military power is being used as a de facto security force for the president's corporate donors and their oil interests, leaving the American taxpayer to effectively subsidize a security force for Big Oil."
Alarmed by Trump's recent actions in and around Venezuela, the Senate on Thursday advanced a bipartisan war powers resolution—but so far, the measure still lacks the Republican support needed to get to a final vote. Even if it passed the upper chamber, the legislation would also need to get through the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Unveil Bill to Prohibit Taxpayer Funding for Trump Occupation, Plunder of Venezuela
"The American people want affordable healthcare, not to spend billions or more on ‘running’ Venezuela," said US Rep. Joaquin Castro.
Jan 08, 2026
A pair of House Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation that would prohibit the Trump administration from using any taxpayer funding to control Venezuela or exploit its vast oil reserves, an effort launched after the US president said he expects his illegal plunder operation in the South American country to last years.
The new bill, titled the No Occupation of Venezuela (NOVA) Act of 2026, would bar "any federal funds from being used to support US possession, supervision, jurisdiction, or control over Venezuelan territory or resources, whether through military or civilian means," according to a summary released by Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) and Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), the measure's lead sponsors.
The legislation would also prevent "taxpayer dollars from being used to subsidize, reimburse, or otherwise support oil company expansion, reconstruction, or resource control in Venezuela" and halt any effort by the White House to shift "from military action to civilian governance or economic administration without explicit congressional authorization."
“The American people want affordable healthcare, not to spend billions or more on ‘running’ Venezuela,” Castro said in a statement. “The NOVA Act would block the president from occupying Venezuela and prevent him from enriching himself, his cronies, and oil companies in the process.”
The Democratic lawmakers unveiled their legislation a day after the US Department of Energy released a document outlining, with few specific details, how the Trump administration intends to exploit Venezuela's oil with the help of American fossil fuel corporations.
The document states that the US government "has begun marketing Venezuelan crude oil in the global marketplace for the benefit of the United States, Venezuela, and our allies."
"All proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil and oil products will first settle in US-controlled accounts at globally recognized banks to guarantee the legitimacy and integrity of the ultimate distribution of proceeds," the fact sheet continues.
"At a time when families are stretching every dollar for groceries, housing, and healthcare, American taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll an overseas occupation or subsidize Big Oil’s return to Venezuela at Donald Trump’s direction."
Trump has repeatedly suggested that US taxpayers could "reimburse" oil companies that agree to invest in Venezuela in the wake of the administration's illegal assault on the country and abduction of its president, Nicolás Maduro. The president is set to meet with the top executives of major US oil companies at the White House on Friday.
"We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” Trump said of Venezuela's oil infrastructure in an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that the Trump administration is "about to execute on a deal to take all the oil." Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA, said Wednesday that it was in active negotiations with the Trump administration, but did not say a deal was in place.
The Trump administration's military campaign against Venezuela directly and its massive buildup of forces in the Caribbean have already cost US taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Fortune reported Thursday that the administration's ongoing naval blockade against Venezuelan oil tankers has cost "an estimated $700 million and counting," while the Center for American Progress noted earlier this week that US military deployments to the Caribbean have cost upwards of $600 million.
“At a time when families are stretching every dollar for groceries, housing, and healthcare, American taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll an overseas occupation or subsidize Big Oil’s return to Venezuela at Donald Trump’s direction,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement Thursday. “The NOVA Act draws a clear line: No president gets to spend Americans’ money on foreign occupations or oil deals without Congress—and without the consent of the American people.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular