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
iran nuclear deal
Former US Presidents Must Break Their Silence to Oppose War With Iran
Where are the voices of former presidents who once claimed to represent justice, human rights, and diplomacy?
Jun 25, 2025
‘There are moments in history when leadership is not measured by title or office, but by courage—the willingness to speak when silence is safest. We are living through such a moment right now. And yet, those who once held the highest office in the United States remain silent.
As a scientist trained to seek evidence and truth, their silence is deafening. As an immigrant who came to the U.S. in search of justice, it is heartbreaking. As a woman and mother living with Stage 4 cancer, I watch the devastation unfolding not only in Gaza but increasingly in Iran with profound sorrow and urgency.
Recent Israeli strikes, reportedly backed with U.S. intelligence and weaponry, have pushed the region to the edge of catastrophe. These attacks have extended beyond Gaza, with operations targeting Iranian infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and senior military leaders. Iran risks being pulled deeper into a violent regional entanglement—while its people, already suffocated by economic sanctions, political repression, and isolation, now face the looming threat of all-out war.
If former presidents truly believe in peace, now is the time to show it. They have platforms. They have credibility. They have nothing to lose, except history's judgment.
Where are the voices of former presidents who once claimed to represent justice, human rights, and diplomacy?
Former President Barack Obama, whose administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal, knows better than most what is at stake. That agreement once offered a path to peace and global cooperation. It was torn apart for political gain, and now we are witnessing its consequences—diplomacy abandoned, escalation normalized, and entire populations treated as expendable.
In 2009, President Obama stood at Cairo University and told the Muslim world: "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace...This cycle of suspicion and discord must end." He called for a new beginning between the United States and Muslim-majority countries, based on mutual respect and shared interests. What happened to that vision? How can that promise be reconciled with today's silence in the face of mass suffering?
Former President George W. Bush claimed to care about freedom in the Middle East. His war in Iraq shattered that notion. But what might it mean now, in retrospect, for him to publicly oppose the current militarization and collective punishment of Iranian civilians?
Even those whose terms seemed quieter—like former President Bill Clinton—could choose to stand for peace today. They could issue a joint statement calling for a cease-fire, denouncing attacks on civilians, or simply affirming that Iranian lives, like Palestinian and Israeli lives, matter.
Instead, we hear nothing. Their silence is not neutral. It becomes complicity.
Iranian scientists are assassinated without trial. Hospitals, power plants, and schools face sabotage. Families in Tehran and Isfahan live with the fear that the next drone won't be aimed at a military site—but at them. The already precarious state of women's rights and education in Iran now faces further erosion as war drums drown out every other concern.
This is not theoretical. I know what it means to grow up under threat. I was a child during the Iran-Iraq war, when bombing became part of daily life. I know what it's like to lose trust in institutions, to question the future, to long for stability in a world that seems to forget your humanity.
And still, in the face of this spiralling violence, American leaders of the past say nothing.
Maybe they fear political backlash. Maybe they worry that defending Iranian civilians will be misinterpreted as endorsing the Iranian regime. But this is a false binary. One can denounce authoritarianism in Tehran while also opposing war, sanctions, and collective punishment that harms ordinary Iranians most.
Maybe they are protecting diplomatic legacies, unwilling to criticize the Israeli government. But legacy without moral clarity is hollow. Comfort without conscience is betrayal.
The people of Iran are not monolithic. Many have risked their lives to protest for freedom and dignity. Iranian women, in particular, have led some of the bravest civil resistance movements in recent history. To remain silent as bombs fall, as sanctions tighten, as hopes for diplomacy vanish—is to abandon them.
This is not just a regional issue. It is a global moral reckoning. The war machine that consumes Gaza and threatens Iran is the same one that diverts trillions from healthcare, education, and climate action. It is the same system that prioritizes weapons over welfare, surveillance over science, destruction over diplomacy.
If former presidents truly believe in peace, now is the time to show it. They have platforms. They have credibility. They have nothing to lose, except history's judgment.
They could issue a joint call for deescalation. They could demand the protection of civilians, humanitarian access, and a halt to military actions that risk igniting a broader war. They could remind the world that diplomacy is still possible, and that the Iranian people—like all people—deserve a future free from bombs, sanctions, and authoritarianism alike.
They could speak. But they don't.
Meanwhile, young Iranians grow up watching rockets cross their skies. Iranian Americans worry for their families, their safety, their futures. And the rest of us grow more numb, more detached, more hopeless.
It doesn't have to be this way. Leadership is not limited to the Oval Office. It lives in action, in conscience, in the refusal to stay quiet when lives hang in the balance.
The world is watching. Iranians, across Tehran and in the diaspora, are watching. Young Americans yearning for moral clarity are watching. History is watching.
To the former presidents of the United States: Use your voice. Speak before it's too late. You owe it to the people who once believed you stood for something.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Nuclear Trump Factor
The threat of nuclear war has never been greater than today. The self-proclaimed peacemaker in Washington is to blame.
May 31, 2025
Hardly a day goes by without the phrase "Donald Trump is a danger to the world" being given new life. The threat posed by the U.S. president applies of course to the U.S. itself, which is in danger of sliding into fascist authoritarianism, and to the planetary boundaries that the billionaire cabinet is enthusiastically trampling all over with its "drill, baby, drill" policy.
What is less noticed is another global threat being driven by the MAGA insurrection movement in the White House, which has declared war on democracy, the state, and the planet. It is the risk of nuclear war. Although Trump is calling for an end to the fighting in Ukraine, which would reduce the threat of nuclear weapons being used in this crisis hotspot, the overall dangers have increased with the new administration.
First of all, it should be kept in mind that in the U.S., the president has sole authority, without restrictions or consultation, to order a nuclear attack against any target at any time, for any reason. He does not have to consult with anyone, and the decision is beyond any control. This is made possible by the so-called "nuclear football" (officially called the "presidential emergency satchel"). Military personnel who carry it accompany the president wherever he goes.
Trump's hara-kiri and doomsday politics, which destroy trust and rely on macho gestures instead of nuclear restraint and international cooperation, are a permanent source of instability and escalation.
The U.S. president can therefore carry out nuclear strikes at any time, which would mean hundreds of millions of deaths and probably the end of humanity. Experts and some politicians in Congress warn that this is a risky, vulnerable, and undemocratic procedure, established by the Eisenhower administration in the late 1950s, which places the decision about the possible end of the world in the hands of a single person. On the other hand, this arrangement is a central element of the U.S. nuclear deterrence strategy, which is intended to send a frightening message to the world.
The mere fact that Donald Trump has once again concentrated this power in his own hands is a danger in terms of the possible use of nuclear weapons. The reasons for this are obvious. Trump has shown himself to be unpredictable, erratic, and emotionally unstable as a person and political leader. His endless lies, provocations, humiliations, and calls for violence are widely known. When he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden, he initiated and supported an attempted coup on January 6, 2021. As the new president, he ultimately pardoned 1,500 convicted violent criminals, including neo-Nazi leaders who participated in the storming of the Capitol. He also faces multiple charges, including for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in his favor, and was convicted of rape by a New York court last year.
In October 2024, over 200 mental health experts warned before the election that Donald Trump was dangerous due to his symptoms of severe, untreatable personality disorder, which they diagnosed as "malignant narcissism." This makes him completely unfit for leadership, according to the health experts. Mary Trump, Donald Trump's niece and a clinical psychologist, also warned against his reelection. In her book Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man, she calls her uncle a sociopath. In it, she describes his upbringing in a dysfunctional family that promoted greed, cruelty, and racist and sexist behavior.
At first glance, it may seem reassuring that Trump declared during his first term that nukes were "the biggest problem in the world" and that his goal was to get rid of them. In February 2025, after taking office again, he said, "There's no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many." Unfortunately, this is just rhetoric. Trump has done nothing in this direction so far and has actually increased the nuclear risks through his actions.
In 2018, during his first term as president, Trump announced his withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran, which had successfully limited the uranium enrichment of nuclear fuel in exchange for sanctions relief. Since then, Iran has accelerated its nuclear weapons program. Estimates suggest that Iran could produce several bombs in a matter of months or even weeks. Shortly thereafter, following a series of escalating threats, Trump suggested that North Korea had agreed to denuclearization. Talks followed, but an agreement never materialized.
Furthermore, the first Trump administration indicated to the U.S. Congress that if deterrence against China failed, the U.S. would have to "win" militarily. Peter Kuznick, professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, told Truthout: "U.S. politicians seem so panicked about China's enormous growth and the way it is challenging U.S. hegemony in the Pacific that they are willing to risk nuclear annihilation to prevent it."
Researchers at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists warned earlier this year, as they moved the Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds before midnight—midnight means "game over" for humanity—that the United States has "embarked on the world's most expensive nuclear modernization" and that "the 2024 election results suggest the United States will pursue a faster, more expansive nuclear investment program. It is possible that the United States will expand its nuclear efforts to include more nuclear options, rely more on nuclear brinkmanship to advance its security and deterrence goals, and shun proven efforts to reduce nuclear dangers. The United States is now a full partner in a worldwide nuclear arms race."
This is taking place amid chaotic DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) attacks led by Elon Musk against the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in which hundreds of scientists and experts responsible for the country's nuclear security were fired. It is unclear whether all of them have returned to the agency after the layoffs were reversed and whether security gaps are to be feared.
The Trump administration is meanwhile pursuing a "peace through strength" strategy in its foreign policy. This is the motto of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, under which the U.S. launched a historic wave of rearmament. Republicans in the U.S. Congress also support this concept. They want to fuel the arms race by increasing the already historically high U.S. defense budget. There are calls on Trump to demonstrate to Russia that the U.S. holds global supremacy. And there is pressure to resume nuclear testing in order to win the arms race, which observers view as very worrying. The military establishment is even calling for the reintroduction of tactical nuclear weapons into the U.S. arsenal, which can be used in regional wars, which would mean further dramatic destabilization.
But what increases the nuclear risks above all is that, just months after taking office, the Trump administration has triggered "potentially the fastest and most dangerous acceleration of nuclear arms proliferation around the world since the early Cold War." His repeated "America First" statements, saying that the U.S. no longer feels bound by partnerships and would not come to the rescue of allies in an emergency, have left them feeling abandoned by the United States.
This has sparked a debate in European capitals about whether the U.S. nuclear umbrella can still be relied upon. France and the U.K. have offered to fill the gap. In an interview in March before his election as Germany's new chancellor, Friedrich Merz did not even rule out the idea of developing his own nuclear bomb. And in Poland, Prime Minister Donald Tusk is now talking about his country "must reach for the most modern capabilities also related to nuclear weapons." In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is openly considering reintroducing a nuclear deterrent.
The risk of nuclear weapons spreading further across the globe is greatest in East Asia. During his 2016 election campaign, Trump said that Japan and South Korea might have to develop nuclear weapons. "It's only a matter of time," he said. Former South Korea's right-wing president, Yoon Suk Yeol, finally welcomed the deployment of U.S. tactical weapons in South Korea and intended to arm his country with nuclear weapons. Even though Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung, who is leading in the presidential election polls (official vote is on Tuesday, June 3), is skeptical about South Korea going nuclear, the debate continues in the country. Political scientists Jami Levin and Youngwon Cho see this as a fatal development:
While Trump has been busy burning bridges in Europe and North America, his allies in East Asia—South Korea and Japan—have been watching the implosion of the U.S.-led international order in dismay. They have no alternative to the American nuclear umbrella but to build their own deterrent capabilities.
Polls show that more than two-thirds of South Koreans support their country acquiring nuclear weapons independently of the U.S.
Above all, the increasing confrontation with China is viewed with concern. The tariff war that Trump started against Beijing could exacerbate the security crisis in the Pacific and end in a military conflict, according to fears. Trump's trade attacks are reinforcing the trend toward "decoupling," i.e., the economic disentanglement of the two economies from one another. This, in turn, could lead to a rivalry in which both sides are tempted to harm each other through proxy conflicts and attacks on national security. At the same time, strategy papers from the Pentagon show how easily an economic war can escalate into a military conflict (which would put the nuclear option on the table between the two nuclear powers), according to Jack Werner of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in the U.S.:
In a context of mounting economic pain on both sides, with surging nationalism in both countries becoming a binding force on leaders, both governments are likely to choose more destructive responses to what they regard as provocations from the other side. A single misstep around Taiwan or in the South China Sea could end in catastrophe.
Trump's economic and military advisers in the White House are geared toward confrontation with China. That is also the purpose of the presidential order to build a new space-based missile defense system, known as the "Golden Dome." Since Reagan, there have been repeated attempts to initiate such programs. U.S. President Barack Obama wanted to build ABMs (anti-ballistic missiles) in Eastern Europe, but it was only in the wake of the Ukraine war that the Czech Republic gave the green light.
However, all these missile defense systems are not about the possible interception of nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, i.e., self-defense, which cannot work technically, as military analysts have determined. ABM is, as the Rand Corporation, among others, explains, "not just a protective shield, but an enabler of U.S. actions." Lawrence Kaplan, professor at the U.S. Army War College and former senior editor of The New Republic, sums it up as follows: "In other words, missile defense is about preserving America's ability to exercise power abroad. It's not about defense. It's about offense. And that's exactly why we need it."
Even if such defense systems are incapable of preventing nuclear first strikes, they have the advantage of theoretically intercepting retaliatory strikes by enemies in response to a first strike. This means that there would be no threat of self-destruction, which could encourage military planners in the U.S. to launch first strikes while other nuclear powers lose their deterrent capability. And the message of Trump's "Golden Dome" has been received by those who were targeted. China, like Russia, has described the announcement from Washington as a "destabilizing" initiative.
While Trump has initiated negotiations in the Ukraine war that could reduce the nuclear dangers between NATO and Russia, he is simultaneously increasing them in the Pacific in an economic and military confrontation now focused on his main adversary, China, which increases the likelihood of a nuclear conflict.
The same applies to the Middle East. The Gaza war waged by Israel's Netanyahu government, a nuclear power, continues to be enabled by the U.S. with weapons and diplomatic blockade, while Trump has promoted the ethnic cleansing of the completely sealed-off enclave with his "Riviera Plan" remarks. The massacre of Palestinians, which has been going on for over a year and a half, has the potential to set the entire region ablaze. This is evident from the military exchanges with the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran. Israeli Minister of Heritage Amichai Eliyahu even suggested in an interview that dropping a "nuclear bomb" on the Gaza Strip was "an option."
Israel is also regularly indicating that one prepares for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Tehran has declared that it will hold Washington responsible if this happens. This could spark a full-scale war in the region that would draw the U.S. into the conflict, with all the dangers that this entails. At the same time, Trump is exacerbating the conflict himself. Although he wants to negotiate with Iran, he has announced military action if Tehran does not agree to his deal and end all uranium enrichment—which experts consider a dangerous hardline demand that will ultimately lead to war. They argue that it is unnecessary and unacceptable for the country because it would also rule out the civilian use of nuclear power for Iran. Trump threatened that if Tehran did not completely shut down its nuclear program, there would be "all hell to pay," while "all options are on the table"—which is an implicit threat of a nuclear strike.
A similar threat was directed at Russia. On social media, Trump stated on May 28: "What Vladimir Putin doesn't realise is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened in Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He's playing with fire." Putin's confidant and Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, replied: "Regarding Trump's words about Putin 'playing with fire' and 'really bad things' happening to Russia. I only know of one REALLY BAD thing—WWIII."
It is at this point a war of words between two nuclear powers. But Trump's hara-kiri and doomsday politics, which destroy trust and rely on macho gestures instead of nuclear restraint and international cooperation, are a permanent source of instability and escalation. It is therefore important to raise public awareness of the existential threat once again as civil society pressure on governments especially in countries that possess nuclear arms has to increase by seeking ways to revive the policy of détente—i.e. negotiations on disarmament and arms control, as took place in the 1970s under U.S. President Richard Nixon and in Germany with Chancellor Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik. Even under President Bush senior, there were initiatives launched that reduced the risks. These deescalation efforts are the results of organized peace movements that made a difference. Even in the dark times today there are still possibilities for addressing the dangers of atomic annihilation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Urged to Oppose Israeli Prep for 'Disastrous' Strike on Iran Nuclear Facilities
"Trump must take action to course-correct on negotiations aimed at preventing war and Iranian proliferation," the National Iranian American Council.
May 21, 2025
Tuesday night reporting on intelligence that Israel is preparing to possibly strike Iranian nuclear facilities, as U.S. President Donald Trump's administration pursues a diplomatic deal with Tehran, sparked calls for the United States to oppose any such attack.
CNN reported on Israel's preparation for a potential strike, citing multiple unnamed U.S. officials who are familiar with the latest intelligence but also "caution it's not clear that Israeli leaders have made a final decision, and that in fact, there is deep disagreement within the U.S. government about the likelihood that Israel will ultimately act."
In a signal of how seriously the international community is taking CNN's reporting, oil prices jumped on Wednesday. According to Barron's: "Brent crude, the global standard, was up 0.9% at $65.95 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate crude gained 1% to $62.63 a barrel. Prices were paring their gains, after initially rising as much as 3%."
While the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. did not comment and CNN is awaiting a response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office and the U.S. National Security Council, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) weighed in with a Wednesday statement.
"This is not the first time that Israel is threatening to attack Iran—unilaterally and without justification, to disastrous consequence," said NIAC. "What is of critical importance is ascertaining why Israel's government is making this threat now. More likely than not, the radical Benjamin Netanyahu government sees an opportunity to press the Trump administration to take a hardline position in the Iran nuclear talks that will ensure their collapse and America's movement toward a preventable and disastrous war."
"It should also sharpen choices for the Trump administration," the group continued. "President Trump must take action to course-correct on negotiations aimed at preventing war and Iranian proliferation. The entrenching stalemate has largely been driven by far-reaching American demands that ignore strong alternatives that could weather Iran's own fierce domestic politics."
NIAC stressed that "there is a path to avoiding war, but it will require compromise and making sure that Israel is not leading America into a war that would have disastrous and generational consequences for the U.S. and Middle East as a whole."
Since October 2023, Israel's U.S.-backed assault on the Gaza Strip—the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case—and American strikes on Yemen have escalated fears of the United States participating more directly in a regional war.
Despite Trump ditching a previous Iran nuclear deal during his first term, his second administration now claims it is aiming to work out a deal. However, whether the two sides can come to a new agreement remains to be seen.
Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday that the president "wants to solve this conflict diplomatically and with dialogue, but "we have one very, very clear red line, and that is enrichment. We cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability. We've delivered a proposal to the Iranians that we think addresses some of this without disrespecting them."
As CNN detailed Tuesday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he does not expect nuclear talks with the United States to "reach a conclusion" and called the U.S. demand that Iran not enrich uranium a "big mistake." Still, according to Witkoff, there may be another round of negotiations in Europe this week.
Michael Hall, communications manager at the D.C.-based think tank Defense Priorities, suggested that the U.S. government should negotiate directly with Tehran, pointing to contact with the Kremlin, which has included calls between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Witkoff's meeting with Russia's leader—who launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
"The U.S. should make clear we are committed to avoiding a war and will not assist in any strike on Iran," Hall said on social media Tuesday. "If Trump can send Witkoff to Moscow, he can send Witkoff to Tehran. If Trump can call Putin, he can call the ayatollah. A good chance to prove American commitment to diplomacy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular