America is barreling towards authoritarianism at such a breakneck pace that it should alarm every single one of us. But instead of meeting this moment with courage and integrity, the corporate media has utterly capitulated, stuffing money in Trump's pockets, spiking stories that might offend the regime, and firing journalists who refuse to go along and get along. That is not journalism. That’s complicity.
Our model of reader-funded journalism has survived for one reason only: people like you. Please help us with a gift of $8, $13, $27, $75, or whatever amount you can afford, which will help keep Common Dreams strong now and into the future.
Why Your Support Matters Now
Our model of reader-funded journalism has survived for one reason only: people like you. Please help us with a gift of $8, $13, $27, $75, or whatever amount you can afford, which will help keep Common Dreams strong now and into the future.
One analyst predicted Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz and attack oil installations "in the hope of driving oil prices to record levels" should the US strike.
US President Donald Trump on Friday confirmed that he's considering launching an unprovoked military strike against Iran.
According to the New York Times, Trump was asked by reporters on Friday if he was considering attacking Iran, and he replied, "I guess I can say I am considering that."
The US has for weeks been sending fleets of warships, including the world's largest aircraft carrier, to the Middle East in apparent preparation for a massive military operation against Iran.
According to a Friday report from Al Jazeera, the buildup is the largest by the US Air Force in the region since the 2003 Iraq War, and it includes deployments of E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, F-35 stealth strike fighters and F-22 air superiority jets, and F-15 and F-16 fighter jets.
Trump has not given any justification for launching such an attack, nor has he asked the US Congress to approve it, even though the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to declare war.
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have been pushing for a vote in the US House of Representatives on a war powers resolution that would require Congress to debate and approve any act of war with Iran.
It is also not clear what goals the president would hope to achieve with the attack. A Thursday CNN report indicated that Trump is now weighing several options ranging from "more targeted strikes to sustained operations that could potentially last for weeks," including "plans to take out Tehran’s leaders."
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in a Friday analysis of Trump's reported attack plans that there is little chance that the president will be able to achieve a quick victory over Iran simply because the offers he has made to its government are nonstarters.
"Since the US strategy... is to escalate until Tehran caves, and since capitulation is a non-option for Iran, the Iranians are incentivized to strike back right away at the US," explained Parsi. "The only exit Tehran sees is to fight back, inflict as much pain as possible on the US, and hope that this causes Trump to back off or accept a more equitable deal."
Parsi acknowledged that there is no way Iran can defeat the US militarily, but could "get close to destroying Trump’s presidency before it loses the war" through a number of maneuvers intended to spike the price of oil, including "closing the Strait of Hormuz" and attacking "oil installations in the region in the hope of driving oil prices to record levels and by that inflation in the US."
"This is an extremely risky option for Iran," Parsi conceded, "but one that Tehran sees as less risky than the capitulation 'deal' Trump is seeking to force on Iran."
A war in the Middle East instigated by the US president does not serve even one vital American interest. It would be a catastrophe in every possible way.
The Wall Street Journal reports that President Donald Trump is considering a small attack to force Iran to agree to his nuclear deal, and if Tehran refuses, escalate the attacks until Iran either agrees or the regime falls.
Here’s why this won’t work.
First of all, the “deal” Trump has put forward entails Tehran completely giving up its nuclear program in return for no newsanctions, but no actual sanctions relief. This is, of course, a non-starter for Iran.
There are hardly any more sanctions the US could impose on Iran. And the current level of sanctions is suffocating the economy. Accepting this deal would not enable Iran to escape its economic dead end, but would only prolong the economic decay while depriving it of the nuclear leverage it believes it needs to free itself from existing sanctions.
Second, according to my sources, Trump recently also floated the idea of a smaller attack, with the Iranians responding symbolically by striking an empty US base. But Tehran refused and made clear that any attack would be responded to forcefully. Trump may hope that with a much larger strike force in the region, Tehran will reconsider its response.
But it is difficult to see why Tehran would, since caving to this military threat likely will only invite further coercive demands, beginning with conventional military options such as its missile capabilities. That is Iran’s last remaining deterrent against Israel. Without it, Israel would be more inclined to attack and cement its subjugation of Iran, or alternatively move to collapse the theocratic regime altogether, Tehran fears.
Thus, capitulating to Trump’s “deal” would not end the confrontation, but only make Tehran more vulnerable to further attacks by Israel or the US.
Third, since the U.S. strategy, according to the WSJ, is to escalate until Tehran caves, and since capitulation is a non-option for Iran, the Iranians are incentivized to strike back right away at the US The only exit Tehran sees is to fight back, inflict as much pain as possible on the U.S., and hope that this causes Trump to back off or accept a more equitable deal.
In this calculation, Iran would not need to win the war (militarily, it can’t); it would only have to get close to destroying Trump’s presidency before it loses the war by: 1) closing the Strait of Hormuz and strike oil installations in the region in the hope of driving oil prices to record levels and by that inflation in the US; and 2) strike at US bases, ships, or other regional assets and make Trump choose between compromise or a forever war in the region, rather than the quick glorious victory he is looking for.
This is an extremely risky option for Iran, but one that Tehran sees as less risky than the capitulation “deal” Trump is seeking to force on Iran.
None of this, of course, serves US interest, has been authorized by Congress, enjoys the support of the American people or the support of regional allies (save Israel), is compatible with international law, or answers the crucial question: How does this end?
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," said Abbas Araghchi. "A military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences."
As President Donald Trump continued to threaten a potentially massive war, Iran's foreign minister stressed his commitment to peaceful negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
Amid the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq, Trump said on Thursday that he was weighing an initial, limited strike in order to force Iran to negotiate a new deal to limit its nuclear enrichment and would launch a broader attack—potentially aimed at toppling the entire government—if the country refused to do so.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded to these demands in a lengthy interview on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" on Friday, discussing recent talks with the US in Geneva.
"One thing I have to emphasize is that there is no military solution for Iran's nuclear program," Araghchi said. "That was tested last year, and there was a huge attack on our facilities. They killed and assassinated our scientists, but they couldn't kill our nuclear program."
After his strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in June, Trump claimed to have “obliterated” Iran's nuclear program and enrichment capabilities. But less than a year later, he is once again threatening a much bigger attack on Iran using the same justification.
Iran's Masoud Pezeshkian insisted earlier this week that his country is “absolutely not seeking nuclear weapons” and invited international inspectors in to verify it. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, meanwhile, has reiterated that Iran has the right to a nuclear industry.
"If they want a solution for Iran's nuclear program, if they want to ensure that Iran's nuclear program would remain peaceful forever," Araghchi said on Friday, "the only solution is diplomatic negotiation."
Although Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear power for peaceful means under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Trump publicly declared that he would not accept a deal that allows "any enrichment” by Iran.
Araghchi, however, said that's not what the discussion has looked like behind the scenes. "The US side has not asked for zero enrichment,” he said.
Instead, he said they discussed "political commitments and technical measures" to "make sure that this program is only for peaceful purposes" and said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, was involved in helping to craft them.
"This is what we have already done in 2015," Araghchi said, referring to the first nuclear deal between Iran and the US, which Trump ripped up during his first term, even though Iran was complying with its strict enrichment limits. "I believe that we can do it again, even a better one," he said.
Although the US president warned on Thursday that Iran must agree to a deal within 10 days or "bad things happen," Araghchi said there has been "no ultimatum" from Trump and that the only discussion between the two sides was on how to reach a "fast deal."
"We are under sanctions. Obviously, any day the sanctions are terminated sooner would be better for us. So we have no reason to delay a possible deal," Araghchi said. "For the US side also, President Trump and his team are interested in a quick deal. So we agreed to work with each other to achieve a deal as soon as possible. The only question is how to make it a fair deal, a win-win deal, an equitable deal."
Trump has also demanded that Iran surrender its ballistic missile program and support for regional allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, which Iran has said are nonstarters. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has nudged Trump keep pushing these maximal demands and has been accused of attempting to goad the US into war with its number one adversary by injecting "poison pills" into the negotiations.
Araghchi did not clarify the extent to which these demands have come up as sticking points during recent talks.
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," Araghchi said. "[A] military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences, not only for us, perhaps for the whole region and for the whole international community, which is fed up with different escalations and wars in our region and beyond."
Soon after Araghchi's interview aired, Trump told reporters he was considering a military strike to force Iran into a deal.
“I guess I can say I am considering that,” he said at the start of a meeting with governors at the White House.
