

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It is the perceived American imperial interest, led by an infantile, power-hungry US president with the Epstein scandal hanging over him, that caused the Iran War.
Israel has been a junior partner of the US empire’s Middle East policy since its military success in the 1967 Six Day War. While there are instances of Israel pushing the US into conflict, most directly in the US-Israel war against Iran in June 2025, the current war in Iran was driven by the US empire’s perceived interests plus the Trump factor.
Israel has long been pressuring the US to fight Iran, but the empire did not find it worthwhile to initiate a full-scale war against the country. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the US Congress during the Obama era warned of an impending Iranian nuclear weapon. But, instead, President Barack Obama continued the diplomatic route through establishing the Iran Deal, ensuring Iran would not develop nuclear arms. Long before that, neocons dreamed about attacking Iran, from John Bolton’s pressuring the Bush administration to attack the Persian nation to John McCain’s 2007 bomb Iran song.
In addition to the neocons, several other segments of the population have long been eager for an Iran war: Christian evangelicals, Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists, and pro-Israeli American lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Also, the pro-military US public, while not supportive of this war, seems to have an inadequate sense of war's gravity based on their overwhelming majority support for most American wars since WWII. Then, of course, there is the American military-industrial complex, which is seeing high demand for armaments and missile technology as the US spends at least $1 billion a day on the Iran War. With oil at over $100 a barrel, the other main corporate beneficiary to the war is the petroleum industry.
These are all very active and influential internal American elements that have existed for quite some time. With a demagogue in the White House seeking to turn the US into a dictatorship, war has proven to be the answer, whether with Venezuela, threatening a takeover of Greenland, and now Iran. An important factor in pushing President Donald Trump are the Epstein files: war is not only good for accumulating power domestically but a convenient distraction from scandal.
In essence, the US empire, with a Nero-like figure at the helm riddled with scandal, has created a disastrous mess.
American oil interests, the military-industrial complex, and the US’ general policy demanding obeisance from other nations have always seen Iran’s theocratic republic as a particular thorn in their side. Historically, when the US has interfered in the Middle East, Iran, through allied groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, or its more distant ally, Hamas, have not remained quiet. This was seen during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza with the Houthis attacking Israel and when Iran-backed militias attacked US soldiers in Iraq during the mid 2000s. The question in the US media was never about what right the US had to be in sovereign Middle Eastern countries. It was, rather, that no one had the right to push back against US interference. The US seemed to think that if countries didn’t bend over backwards like the Gulf States, they were a problem. And, to Washington, Iran has been especially troublesome.
Israel, as has been said by many scholars, is essentially a US fortress in the Middle East. From 2023 to present, Israel has weakened its local enemies and set its sights on Iran’s destruction with increased intensity. Yet it is the perceived American imperial interest, led by an infantile, power-hungry US president with the Epstein scandal hanging over him, that caused the Iran War. Before this, there was hesitation to attack, despite Israeli pressuring, because of the difficulty of changing the deeply embedded Iranian regime, Iran’s ability to strike back at neighboring countries and their US bases and embassies, and the economic blowback of closing the Strait of Hormuz that we now see unfolding.
Furthermore, while only about 40% of Americans support the war, the lack of significant anti-war demonstrations and the general war-normalized zeitgeist of Americans indicates that they are not too opposed to it either. The leading Democrats are no better: They’ve offered only procedural rather than principled criticism of the Iran War.
In essence, the US empire, with a Nero-like figure at the helm riddled with scandal, has created a disastrous mess. It has started an unplanned, unrationalized and, most importantly, unjust war replete with probable war crimes against the people of Iran and Lebanon. It is true, Israel sometimes has wagged the dog, but despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s war justification (one of many from the administration), the blame lies squarely with the empire, vested internal interests, and its wannabe dictator. Some blame also lies with the pro-military American population that still sees war as noble, even if sometimes the means of carrying it out aren’t pretty.
Yet war is never noble unless a nation is attacked or a nation has a boot pressing against its neck. Even then, war is ugly. This fact, more than a spurious desire to “liberate,” is what Americans need to remember.
President Sánchez’s voice has been the bravest in Europe. His peace communication and action have the potential to disarm the authoritarian brutality of war as events in Iran and the Middle East grip the hearts and minds of the peoples of the world.
In a move that has sent shockwaves from Washington to Tel Aviv, passing through Berlin and Ankara, Spanish President Pedro Sánchez has positioned Spain as the primary European holdout against the escalating military conflict in Iran. Invoking the ghost of protests against the 2003 Iraq War, Sánchez’s government has blocked the United States from using Spanish military bases at Rota and Morón de la Frontera to bomb Iran—a decision that has triggered threats of a trade embargo from US President Donald Trump.
Sánchez has provided a three-fold argument against the war: that it is contrary to international law, unethical, and catastrophic for the world. He is simultaneously presenting himself as a courageous politician whose principles transcend any fear of US retaliation and a pragmatist who wishes to avoid the negative consequences of the war, from economic disaster to Islamist terrorism.
No a la Guerra captures this narrative in a way that resonates strongly not only in the minds of Spaniards but across the world. Sánchez has satisfied an international demand to speak out against Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and put peace on the agenda. His government has broken a spiral of silence. Can it stir support to stop the war?
Sánchez’s predecessor, José Maria Aznar, dragged Spain into the illegal and catastrophic Iraq War against the will of its people. That remains strongly embedded in the Spanish collective consciousness. The right-wing Partido Popular (PP) knows it lost the subsequent election because “weapons of mass destruction” did not exist, innocent people were killed en masse, there were jihadist terrorist attacks in Madrid as retaliation, and the party lied, blaming the domestic terrorist group ETA. Today’s No a la Guerra is a slap to the face of the PP and the far-right party Vox, which both support the US-Israeli war.
In opposing the Iranian war, the Spanish government is part of a wider movement that can unsettle the sense of helplessness that often grips Europe during Middle East conflicts.
While 80-90% of the Spanish population opposed the invasion of Iraq, almost 70% rejects the current war; 53% of the public supports the government’s stance on military bases. Just 23% supports the war. The right-wing opposition, and Podemos on the left, accuse Sánchez of hypocrisy for sending the frigate Cristóbal Colón to the United Kingdom’s military base in Cyprus. Per Britain’s claims for mobilizing forces and matériel, the Spanish government has responded that this is merely for protection rather than offensive purposes, in accordance with NATO’s doctrine of collective defense. Of course, such doctrines may be invoked quite differently should Iran attack US forces stationed in Europe.
Spain’s government must navigate the tension of geopolitical power relations while avoiding any mismatch between its discourse and practice, per the slaughter in Gaza. Some on the left also maintain that it is impossible to oppose the war effectively without sanctioning Israel and leaving NATO.
The right labels Sánchez as posturing ahead of a potential snap election. Yet the PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo has offered babbling, erratic responses that are themselves framed almost entirely through the lens of domestic partisan politics.
Feijóo also argues that Sánchez has abandoned Spain’s allies, jeopardizing the national interest. But the PP’s alignment with pro-war interests represents a regression to an outdated colonialist mindset of total servility. Much like during Aznar’s era, the PP is willing to kneel to US interests, sacrificing national sovereignty to serve as a submissive junior partner in a foreign military campaign. Sanchez’s performance is approved by 42% of the population; 19% support the opposition’s reaction.
The country’s main business association has expressed deep concern about the possibility of the US severing trade relations with Spain and placed responsibility on the Spanish government, urging it to ameliorate the situation.
The European Commission, Italy, France, Portugal, Austria, Ireland, Malta, Turkey, and China have expressed solidarity with Spain in the face of Trump’s threats. However, France and Portugal, together with Germany, the UK, Greece, and Australia have adopted bellicose positions, and Canada is wavering. The President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen has justified the attack on Iran and stated that the European Union must be prepared to “project power” as it can no longer rely on the “rules-based” system to protect the continent’s interests, while the President of the European Council Antonio Costa and the Vice-President of the European Commission Teresa Ribera have spoken up for international law.
Within Latin America, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Chile have advocated for adherence to international law and diplomatic resolution; conversely, Argentina has signaled explicit support for the US and Israeli governments.
Israel accuses Spain of failing to fulfill its obligations per NATO, while Trump, as ever the class bully, threatens to punish it. While remaining submissive to Trump, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has reminded him that he cannot unilaterally block trade with Spain because it shares most-favored nation status with all European Union members. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte justifies the offensive against Iran at the same time as he defends Spain’s contribution to the organization.
Positions may change as the war evolves. Sánchez needs to go further and mobilize international opposition to the war. He must show it is possible and beneficial (including in electoral terms) to stand up to bullying. That will mean developing new alliances and favoring European strategic autonomy and sovereignty. Should the war go badly for US interests, Sánchez’s blend of ethical resistance and enlightened self-interest could encourage other leaders to join him.
For now, Spain is holding up a mirror to other European countries, challenging them to reflect on their diminished sovereignty. Merz looks weak by contrast when he claims that international law does not apply to Iran.
The US National Security Strategy frames the EU as an enemy to be destroyed, while DC and techno-authoritarians promote the far right. Positive coverage of the Spanish government’s stand in the international press can encourage European governments and citizens to confront Trump and Netanyahu. Significant majorities in Spain, Germany, Italy, and Britain oppose military intervention. It is about time democratic leaders understand the US not as an ally but an irresponsible actor seeking to weaponize Europe in its own interest. Iran’s democratic opposition needs peaceful conditions, as opposed to bombs. And the violence that the regime uses to deter dissent and seek internal cohesion against the external enemy. The country’s democratization must be accompanied by democratization and pacification across the globe, especially the United States.

In opposing the Iranian war, the Spanish government is part of a wider movement that can unsettle the sense of helplessness that often grips Europe during Middle East conflicts. Per 2003’s invasion of Iraq, grassroots popular culture is playing a key role in expressing peaceful solidarity.
A Turkish news anchor moved audiences by thanking Spain—in Spanish—for being “on the right side of history” and “representing the common consciousness of humanity,” while a video of Turkish football fans passionately singing the pasodoble España Cañí has become viral; a surreal display of cultural support. Other viral videos feature a skilled Palestinian skater holding a Spanish flag and a Japanese influencer advocating for Spanish products in response to Trump’s threat.
Peace has a chance should the US people rise decidedly against the war. Spain has paved the way for citizens around the world.
Peace and democracy require symbolic triumphs that bring binding affects to the people and joy to the collective political body. Believing that “yes, we can” is a necessary step to the realization of objectives. As Susan Sarandon said in cinema’s recent Goya Awards, “Silence is very dangerous.” When Sánchez broke the silence of world leaders, the possibility of resistance turning viral emerged: “In a place where you feel repression and censorship, to see Spain come forward with such a strong voice and moral clarity is so important to us, the United States; it makes you feel less alone and that there is hope.”
The US and Israel seem to be losing the battle of international public opinion, but that’s not enough: Authoritarian leaders such as Trump and Netanyahu act through force more than consensus in the international arena. Nevertheless, they rely on their own voters. Although 93% of Israeli Jews and 26% of Israeli Arabs support the war, as of early March, 44% of US citizens support the war and 56% oppose it. Despite Trump’s electoral promise of “no war,” only 15% of his supporters oppose the attacks on Iran, but support for Trump and the war are based on a cult of personality and spectacular demonstrations of force and victory in short wars with few national casualties. Some notable isolationist and antisemitic conservatives have already broken with him over Iran.
Although the figures vary depending on the survey, support for the strikes is far lower than that at the beginnings of previous wars. As ever, support for military action may wane as the economic and human costs of war increase. International-relations mavens are unified in their skepticism. While current opposition remains insufficient to halt the conflict, it highlights a decline in President Trump’s support that could prove decisive in the November midterm elections. However, given the catastrophic consequences of the war, an electoral shift may come too late. Because of the illegal nature of the strikes and the bypassing of congressional approval, it may be time to pursue impeachment based on executive overreach and the violation of international law, albeit with no prospect of conviction.
The role of peace communication is to engage with Trump’s supporters: listening to them, empathizing where possible, sharing information, and showing how they are negatively affected by the war.
Peace has a chance should the US people rise decidedly against the war. Spain has paved the way for citizens around the world. But peace communication should not merely be refusal; it should mobilize diplomacy, internationalism, and interculturality. Peace communication must encourage others to agree, not push them away, and do so in the name of mutual transformation. That depends on a shared will, creativity, and care for humanity.
My country bombed a girl's elementary school. My country killed around 160 girls in an instant. Then, we all go to work on Monday—like nothing ever happened.
"To act is to be committed, and to be committed is to be in danger." —James Baldwin
An aerial photo shows rectangular tracings etched into dirt, one rectangle after the other, creating a grid across the land. A yellow excavator pulls piles of earth out from within the rectangular lines until each rectangle is six feet deep, then it moves onto the next. Men jump into the graves and shovel out what the excavator couldn’t reach. We don’t know if these men are the ones burying their own daughters, or if they knew the girls at all. But in my mind, I think they do—maybe they’re the uncles or the older brothers, and I hope to God it isn’t their fathers having to do something so devastating.
Wars have existed throughout all of human history, and this isn’t the first time hundreds of graves have been dug at once. I do wonder, though, if I were born in another time, if I would have seen such an image. The only thing I can be sure of is the reason why I saw the picture in the first place.
My country bombed a girl's elementary school. My country killed around 160 girls in an instant. My country is the reason that the men and women who loved those little girls have to pull their severed, bloody limbs from the rubble; find their backpacks covered in blood; and bury them forever. Then people like Karoline Leavitt, who will be remembered forever for being the spokeswoman for the human meat grinder, will refer to the mass slaughter as “propaganda” when asked about it. Then, we all go to work on Monday instead of setting the world on fire—like nothing ever happened. Like 160 girls’ lives weren’t extinguished while neocons and liberals alike justify regime change on the basis of state-sanctioned violence against women. Have we not all been here before?
When people are being gunned down in the street for resisting immigration raids, and environmental activists are shot execution style in the woods—to be committed is to be in danger.
This carnage is not new to anyone who’s been paying attention. The protests in response to President Donald Trump’s war on Iran were small, and I would be lying if I said it didn’t depress me. Have we all gotten so used to this? Did seeing the videos of children broken to pieces in grocery bags or hanging from their own intestines from the sides of destroyed buildings in Gaza wear down our nerve endings? As time goes on, and the depravity continues, are we more content with our lives if we ignore our own humanity?
Ultimately, and this may be for my own sanity, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not because Americans do not care about the slaughter being carried out in their name. James Baldwin wrote in a letter to his nephew about racism, explaining why white people don’t act differently, even if they know racism is wrong, he says:
Many of them, indeed, know better, but, as you will discover, people find it very difficult to act on what they know. To act is to be committed, and to be committed is to be in danger.
He goes on to describe that if white people were to accept that they weren’t superior to Black people, it would turn their whole world upside down. It would be uncomfortable, for an undefined amount of time to live in a world where everything you “knew” to be true wasn’t anymore.
It would take an exhaustive amount of time to describe how life would change in the United States if people within the country decided that war wasn’t the answer to all of our problems—which has been our country’s fundamental “truth” for decades and decades. Our economy which is so centered around creating weapons and selling them, would need to be restructured completely. We would have to have a government that cannot act against the will of its people.
We would have to accept the “consequences” of not being able to plunder the Earth to its core and take over any country to seize its resources that we happen to need to fulfill the fantasy of endless growth and endless comfort. Eventually, the purpose of life wouldn’t be to have better and better things and be more and more convenient. The purpose of life would be to live, and live with dignity, and live with care. All of this, though, would come later.
The first hurdle in our way is the obvious repression that the pedophile warmongers in the White House can and will put us through if we collectively decide that we aren’t okay with them killing kids anymore. When people are being gunned down in the street for resisting immigration raids, and environmental activists are shot execution style in the woods—to be committed is to be in danger. That repression and that violence are just the tip of the iceberg. If history has taught us anything, it’s that the danger is worth it, that the “truth” we had before is nothing compared to the freedom we will have later. I hope we can all see that clearly, and I hope we’ve sat with it long enough to act, and act seriously.
In the coming weeks, how do we collectively decide to be brave instead of comfortable?