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
national iranian-american council
As Full MOU Text Revealed, Trump Justifies Ending War That Critics Said He Never Should Have Started
"Trump appears to return to the non-zero enrichment position," said one foreign policy analyst. "He should never have abandoned it."
Jun 17, 2026
Foreign policy analysts and peace advocates expressed relief Wednesday that the end of the unprovoked US-Israeli war on Iran could be in sight, as the US government released the text of the memorandum of understanding reached this week by the Trump administration and Iranian negotiators.
But observers noted that the text of the agreement and President Donald Trump's remarks at the Group of Seven meeting in France appeared to acknowledge how needless the war was—after 3,400 Iranians and thousands more people across the Middle East were killed by US and Israeli troops.
The memorandum of understanding (MOU) declares the "immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon," where Israeli forces have killed more than 3,600 people since early March, allows a 60-day window to negotiate the final terms of the deal, and holds that Iran will "maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program," which Iranian officials have consistently said is not for military purposes.
"The United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region," says the MOU.
At the National Iranian American Council, policy director Ryan Costello rejected the commentary of some Trump opponents in Washington, DC who portrayed the deal as a surrender by the US, with some Democratic lawmakers scoffing at the deal's inclusion of a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran—where US and Israeli attacks have destroyed or damaged "100,000 housing units along with schools, hospitals, bridges, and other vital infrastructure."
"The core terms of the agreement are either mutually beneficial or have significant upside, even the ones being decried, denounced, and misportrayed," wrote Costello. "Time will tell if this memorandum can survive the caustic politics in Washington and Tehran that have accompanied any lessening of tensions between the US and Iran, and ultimately deliver relief that is sorely needed... Yet, what has been started is not a threat to American security, it is a threat to the Washington mindset that any US-Iran outcome is ultimately zero-sum and that Iran’s gain is an American loss. The US will benefit if our nation moves off the path of war with Iran. That will be accomplished by the memorandum and the steps that it entails."
In remarks to the press at the G7 summit, Trump addressed questions about how the MOU will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—the key objective of the war, White House officials have repeatedly said. He issued a threat to "bomb them" if Iran does not refrain from developing a nuclear weapon, before indicating he had arrived at a viewpoint long pushed by opponents of the war and foreign policy experts.
"It is a little hard though, when you say that somebody wants it, other people have it, other adjoining states have it, and you're not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that," the president said, referring to Iran's nuclear program.
Trump added that neighboring countries also have ballistic missiles, which Iran has long maintained it should be permitted to have as part of its national security arsenal.
"Today in things it would’ve been great to figure out before you started a war over them," said Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy.
Danny Citrinowicz, a Middle East policy expert, said: "It may have taken a long, costly, and complicated conflict, but the United States appears to have arrived at a conclusion that should have been evident from the start: Iran's missile program is not negotiable because it sits at the very core of the regime's security doctrine."
"Reasonable people can ask whether such a prolonged conflict was necessary to reach this conclusion," he said. "Yet it is better to recognize strategic realities late than never at all. Before events spiraled completely out of control, the US administration stepped back from maximalist objectives and returned to a more measured and realistic approach."
The president suggested that the planned official signing of the deal, scheduled for Friday, could still potentially fall through, and threatened to resume bombing if Iranian officials did not "behave."
He added that he will take credit for the agreement if it holds, and will blame Vice President JD Vance "if it doesn't."
Below is the text of the MOU:
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have jointly agreed in good faith on [ __ date] on the following:
1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
2 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
3 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.
4 — Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.
5 — Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.
6 — The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.
7 — The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
8 — The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blended on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned. They express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
9 — Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.
10 — The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.
11 — The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.
12 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.
13 — After signing this MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.
14 — The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Humiliation Just Compounds': Trump Tells Netanyahu Not to Bomb Iran, Then Israel Strikes Anyway
US President Donald Trump "appears unwilling to spend the political capital necessary to rein in Netanyahu—beyond angry phone calls and tough public statements," said one analyst.
Jun 08, 2026
The Israeli military bombed Iran on Monday shortly after US President Donald Trump urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to respond to an Iranian missile barrage, which came in retaliation for Israel's earlier bombing of Beirut.
"I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to retaliate," Trump told Axios on Sunday, noting that the Iranian strikes did not appear to cause any injuries. "Each of them had their fun. Israel had its strike, and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one."
Iran's missile attack on Israel was the first since a tenuous ceasefire agreement took effect in early April, and the exchange intensified concerns of a return to full-blown regional war. Iran's Foreign Ministry said the Sunday strikes were a defensive response to the Israeli military's bombing of southern Beirut as well as "Israel’s persistent breaches of the April ceasefire, including its collaboration with the US military in attacks on Iranian ships and targets in southern Iran over the past two weeks."
The Israel Defense Forces vowed to "continue to operate all across Lebanon" and said it would not "allow fire toward Israel."
Esmail Baghaei, a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said during a press conference on Monday that despite Trump's public comments, "no one in the region believes" that Israel attacked Lebanon or Iran "without prior coordination and cooperation with the United States."
"The United States bears responsibility as a party to the April 8 ceasefire understanding," said Baghaei. "Whatever happens in the region, whether the US itself violates the ceasefire by attacking Iranian commercial ships or targeting southern parts of the country, or whether violations are carried out through the Zionist regime in Lebanon with US complicity, the direct responsibility of the United States is clear, and the consequences of any escalation will also fall on Washington.”
Trump told the Financial Times following Iran's missile attack on Israel that he did not believe it would undercut the prospects of a diplomatic agreement. The US president also said Netanyahu would have no choice but to accept any agreement the Trump administration reaches with Iran, declaring: "I call the shots. I call all the shots. [Netanyahu] doesn't call the shots."
But critics of Trump's illegal and costly war of choice in Iran, which he launched in coordination with Israel in late February, said Netanyahu's swift defiance of the president's call for restraint underscored how disastrous the conflict has been for the US.
"This war has been humiliating for Trump and American power generally," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media. "And when Trump announces he is going to call Netanyahu and tell him not to retaliate, and within hours Netanyahu retaliates, the humiliation just compounds."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in a blog post following the Israeli attack on Iran that Trump "appears unwilling to spend the political capital necessary to rein in Netanyahu—beyond angry phone calls and tough public statements—unless he knows that he has a deal with Iran."
"From Trump’s perspective, it is only worth doing if an agreement with Iran is already secured. In short, Trump is willing to restrain Israel to preserve a deal, but not to obtain one. Iran, however, wants evidence that Trump can restrain Israel before agreeing to a deal," Parsi wrote. "As a result, the most likely scenario is another round of Iranian and Israeli strikes, with Trump declining to meaningfully constrain Israel."
The National Iranian American Council noted that Iran's leadership "has already threatened a broader and more destructive campaign" in response to Israel's strikes.
"The coming 24 to 72 hours will likely determine whether this becomes a contained crisis or the beginning of a new phase in the regional conflict," the group added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing 'Callous Disregard' of Hegseth, Top House Dem Does Not 'Trust' Pentagon Answers on Iran School Massacre
"Eighty days on, we have not taken responsibility for that attack," said Rep. Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.
May 19, 2026
The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee delivered a scathing rebuke to US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's leadership on Tuesday while asking questions about a February US military strike on an Iranian primary school in the city of Minab.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the mommittee, confronted Adm. Brad Cooper about the fact that the US still hasn't taken responsibility for the attack on the school, which killed more than 100 children, even though "it's really pretty clear what happened there."
"Eighty days on, we have not taken responsibility for that attack," Smith said. "The endless stalling—'It's being investigated, it's being investigated, it's being investigated.' In the past, when we've had these type of mistakes, they've been quickly acknowledged, even if a further investigation is necessary to figure out prevention methods. So can you, at this moment, acknowledge that that mistake was made?"
Cooper responded by emphasizing that the US "does not deliberately target civilians," while stating that the Iranian people are not "our enemy."
The first day of the Iran war saw the devastating bombing of an elementary school in Minab, killing 156 including 120 young children. The U.S. has not taken responsibility, even though an ongoing investigation implicated the U.S. months ago. This horrific crime cannot be swept… pic.twitter.com/OVEyNmNTzb
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) May 19, 2026
Smith was not satisfied with this, however, and pressed Cooper to answer whether the US takes responsibility for the attack on the school.
"The investigation is ongoing," Cooper said. "As soon as it's complete, I'm happy to..."
"So that's a no," Smith interjected. "We will not take responsibility for something we very obviously did."
"It's a complex investigation," Cooper replied. "The school itself is located on an active [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] cruise missile base. It's more complex than the average strike. As soon as we're complete, I'm fully committed to transparency."
Smith did not buy this explanation.
"I have an enormous amount of respect for you and an enormous amount of respect for the Pentagon," said Smith. "I do not trust that answer. What we've seen from this secretary of defense and his callous disregard for any sort of rules of engagement or protecting of civilian life, they make us suspicious."
Smith's grilling of Cooper earned praise from the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which said the bombing of the school "cannot be swept under the rug" by Hegseth and the Pentagon brass.
Hegseth during his tenure leading the US Department of Defense has repeatedly attacked rule of engagement as "stupid," while also authorizing a series of military strikes on purported drug-smuggling boats in international waters that many legal experts consider acts of murder.
During President Donald Trump's first term, when Hegseth was a Fox News host, he successfully lobbied the president to pardon members of the US armed forces accused or convicted of killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘An Almost Unthinkable Threat’: Trump Warning That Iran Will ‘Glow’ Sparks Latest Fears of Nuclear Attack
“It again raises urgent questions: Is this president fit to lead and make consequential decisions that impact countless lives?” said the National Iranian-American Council.
May 08, 2026
As he struggles to force Iran’s capitulation, US President Donald Trump issued what seemed to be yet another threat to commit an act of mass destruction against the country through nuclear warfare.
When negotiations have faltered in recent weeks, Trump has on multiple occasions defaulted to genocidal threats—including that the “whole civilization” of Iran would “die,” and that the whole country would be “blown up"—which have only seemed to anger and galvanize his Iranian adversaries rather than make them quake with fear.
While the Trump administration has continued to insist that the ceasefire with Iran was still in effect, the two countries have exchanged significant fire this week.
On Thursday, the US launched what it said were "self-defense" strikes on military facilities it claimed were responsible for attempting to attack three US Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran called the attacks a violation of the ceasefire and said its attacks on US ships were in response to American bombings of Iranian oil tankers the previous day.
Trump told reporters on Thursday that if the ceasefire were truly over, everyone would know. "If there's no ceasefire, you're just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran," he said. "They'd better sign the agreement fast… If they don’t sign, they’re going to have a lot of pain.”
To many observers, this sounded like a threat from Trump to carry out a nuclear holocaust, though it could also be a redux of Trump's threats to attack civilian energy infrastructure, which would still be a war crime.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, the editor-in-chief of Responsible Statecraft, noted that if it were indeed a nuclear threat, it would be "ironic since the war today supposedly is to prevent Iran from getting... a nuclear weapon."
The National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) said that “threatening to make Iran glow—with nuclear weapons or otherwise—is an almost unthinkable threat to commit a mass war crime against 92 million people. It must never be normalized.”
“It again raises urgent questions: Is this president fit to lead and make consequential decisions that impact countless lives?” the group said. “Would the chain of command refuse unlawful orders to make Iran ‘glow,’ killing millions of people?”
Trump's pledge to wipe out Iranian civilization last month drew widespread condemnation and led dozens of Democratic members of Congress to call for his Cabinet to remove him from office using the powers of the 25th Amendment.
“Our leaders need to interrogate these questions seriously, and not write them off as the ramblings of a madman,” NIAC said. “Trump is the president, and may seek to act on these horrible, contemptible threats. This war needs to end, and so [does] Trump’s horrific threatening of war crimes.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
US, Israel 'Going Gaza on Iran' as Death Toll Tops 500 Amid New Massacres
"This is carpet-bombing, which has struck everything from playgrounds, to an emergency services HQ, schools, media buildings, and medical facilities," said one observer.
Mar 02, 2026
US and Israeli forces were accused Monday of "seemingly indiscriminate" bombing of Iran as the country's Red Crescent said that at least 555 people have been killed amid reports of fresh mass casualty attacks across the country.
The Iranian Red Crescent Society said at least 555 people have been killed so far during three days of a US and Israeli war of choice aimed at toppling Iran's long-ruling Islamist government. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday continued to insist that the war is not about regime change, but rather enduring yet bogus claims that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons.
Those killed include many civilians as well as former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei and dozens of senior government and military officials. Iranian counterattacks have killed half a dozen US troops, 9 Israelis, and a handful of people in Gulf nations allied with the United States.
An attack on the Abbasabad Police Station—where anti-government protesters were allegedly tortured during the recent deadly crackdown—in Niloofar Square in central Tehran killed at least 20 people, local media reported.
"This is carpet-bombing, which has struck everything from playgrounds, to an emergency services HQ, schools, media buildings, and medical facilities," documentary filmmaker Robert Inlakesh said in a social media post showing the aftermath of the strike.
Local residents said that the site was attacked for the second time in three days. This was part of broader US-Israeli strikes on Tehran, including attacks on the Revolutionary Court, Defense Ministry, other government sites, and civilian infrastructure including at least eight medical facilities and state media outlets.
Carpet bombing in Iran is stark reminder of how air superiority shapes modern warfare. In May 2025, Pakistan faced similar escalation from India—yet credible air defense and a combat-ready air force altered strategic calculus decisively.
Invest in air power, instead of proxies! pic.twitter.com/H3rx2tYS7T
— Sarah Khan (@sarahkhanjourno) March 2, 2026
Video footage of another attack on central Tehran—this one in Ferdowsi Square—showed devastation from what political analyst Trita Parsi called "seemingly indiscriminate" bombing.
"Increasingly, Israel and the US appear to be following the Gaza playbook, having failed to achieve a quick regime implosion," Parsi said on social media.
Parsi also shared video of a distraught woman who described an apparent so-called "double-tap" strike, a common tactic used by the US, Israel, and other militaries in which an initial bombing is followed up with a second one in a bid to kill and injure survivors and first responders.
"They killed everyone," the woman said of the attackers. "They dropped the first bomb, then when people went to help, they dropped another bomb."
Local and international media reported at least 35 people killed in multiple attacks on targets in the southern Fars province, which neighbors Hormozgan province, where the deadliest massacre of the young war took place on Saturday. Officials said at least 175 people—mostly children—were killed in a strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in Minab.
Several hours later, a missile strike on a gymnasium in Lamerd, Pars province, where dozens of teenage girls were playing sports reportedly killed at least 18 people.
"Like the destruction of the school in Minab, basic protections to safeguard the lives of civilians in war either failed or were disregarded, leading to catastrophic loss among Iran’s civilian population," the National Iranian American Council said in a statement Monday.
Iranian Red Crescent chief Pirhossein Kolivand said in a video posted on social media Sunday that “the Minab school incident has no comparison with any other incident, even in Gaza."
Comparisons with Gaza—where Israel's genocidal assault has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing since October 2023 and the coastal strip in ruins—have been numerous.
Condemning what it called the "barbarous" and "treacherous" US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based resistance group targeted by Israel during the Gaza war, said, “This aggression confirms the full and direct partnership between America and Israel in planning and execution, not only in the war against the Islamic Republic, but also in all the wars and crimes the region is facing, in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.”
Ori Goldberg, an Israeli political analyst, said that, in Israeli society, "there’s a sense of triumphalism, of having attacked an enemy regime."
"Not really because we’re greatly invested in the future of the Iranian people, but because, through the genocide on Gaza, we’ve devalued human life,” he added.
Parsi said that "Israel appears to be going Gaza on Iran."
The renewed US and Israeli attacks on Iran follow last year's limited war on the country that left thousands of Iranians dead or wounded, including at least 436 civilians killed and over 2,000 others injured, according to officials and activists.
United Nations officials and international human rights defenders were also among those condemning the US-Israeli war of choice.
Addressing the Minab school strike, UNESCO—the UN's educational, scientific, and cultural agency—said that "the killing of pupils in a place dedicated to learning constitutes a grave violation of the protection afforded to schools under international humanitarian law."
UN Messenger of Peace and Nobel Peace laureate Malala Yousafzai asserted that “all states and parties must uphold their obligations under international law to protect civilians and safeguard schools," adding that "every child deserves to live and learn in peace.”
In the United States—where Democratic and a handful of Republican lawmakers are reportedly drafting a war powers resolution in a bid to rein in President Donald Trump's aggression—Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) took to social media to note the "over 555 Iranians already killed by US-Israeli bombs, including at least 165 at a girls' elementary school."
"At least four US service members are dead," she also wrote, before that figure rose to six. "Any member of Congress who votes against the war powers resolution is voting for more of this."
The Not Above the Law coalition was among the civil society groups urging Congress to pass an Iran war powers resolution.
“President Trump has launched deadly military strikes against Iran without congressional approval, in flagrant violation of the Constitution," the coalition's co-chairs said Monday. "Article I, Section 8 is crystal clear: Only Congress can declare war. Yet Trump has secured neither a declaration of war nor congressional authorization for military force."
"Trump’s reckless unilateral action puts American lives and global security at risk while trampling the foundational principle that no president is above the law," Not Above the Law added. “Congress must act immediately. Pass war powers resolutions to reject this unconstitutional power grab and reassert its authority over matters of war and peace. The rule of law demands it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Tankers Just Keep Coming': US Military Movements Spike Fears of Imminent Attack on Iran
"HANDS OFF IRAN Mr. TRUMP," said Yanis Varoufakis. "And to the rest of us: Let's do whatever it takes to oppose another war crime—this time against the Iranian people."
Feb 18, 2026
As an adviser to President Donald Trump told Axios that "I think there is 90% chance we see kinetic action" against Iran in the next few weeks following nuclear talks in Switzerland, US military movement on Wednesday fueled fears of an imminent attack on the Middle Eastern country.
Multiple open-source intelligence accounts on social media shared images of what OSINTdefender called "one of the busiest days for the US Air Force in Europe that I have seen in recent history, with close to a dozen KC-135R/T Stratotankers airborne across the Mediterranean and off the coast of Spain, while a steady line of C-17A Globemaster IIIs can be seen heading towards and returning from bases in the Middle East."
Sharing a similar image showing North America, Europe, and the top of Africa, intelligence analyst Oliver Alexander declared on X that "the tankers just keep coming."
Greek economist and Progressive International co-founder Yanis Varoufakis responded to that post with a clear message directed at Trump—who notably abandoned the United States' previous nuclear deal with Iran during his first term.
"Looks like an imminent US strike is in train as US tanker planes are heading eastwards. HANDS OFF IRAN Mr. TRUMP," he said. "And to the rest of us: Let's do whatever it takes to oppose another war crime—this time against the Iranian people."
Also spotlighting the US military movements on Wednesday, progressive US political commentator and talk show host Kyle Kulinski nodded to Trump's deadly invasion of Venezuela last month to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and hand over the South American country's nationalized oil industry to his US campaign donors.
A US attack on Iran by "imperialist warmonger Trump" would be "another illegal and offensive war against a country that didn't attack us," Kulinski said.
The observed military movements came just hours after Axios not only published the Trump official's remark about a 90% chance of war, but also reported that "a US military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weekslong campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month's pinpoint operation in Venezuela," according to unnamed sources who "noted it would likely be a joint US-Israeli campaign."
In the Middle East, "Trump's armada has grown to include two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of fighter jets, and multiple air defense systems. Some of that firepower is still on its way," the outlet highlighted. "More than 150 US military cargo flights have moved weapons systems and ammunition to the Middle East. Just in the past 24 hours, another 50 fighter jets—F-35s, F-22s, and F-16s—headed to the region."
The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that leaders in Iran "want to reach a nuclear deal with the US, but they are also rushing to prepare for war in case talks between the countries fail," including by "deploying its forces, dispersing decision-making authority, fortifying its nuclear sites, and expanding its crackdown on domestic dissent."
As the newspaper detailed:
A Russian warship arrived at the Strait of Hormuz and docked at the Iranian port town of Bandar Abbas ahead of a military exercise planned for Thursday, according to Iranian and Russian state-run media.
The exercises are taking place not far from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which is sailing off the coast of Oman.
"More dangerous than the American warship is the weapon that can send it to the bottom of the sea," Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday.
While Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said this week's "constructive" talks with Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner concluded with "a general agreement on some guiding principles," US Vice President JD Vance contributed to rising concerns on Tuesday as he discussed the ayatollah's remarks, negotiations, and regional military buildup on Fox News.
"I think the president has a lot of options. We do have a very powerful military. The president's shown a willingness to use it. He also has a remarkable diplomatic team and he's shown a willingness to use that too," Vance said. "The United States has certain red lines. Our primary interest here is we don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon."
Vance, who noted that he spoke directly with Witkoff and Kushner earlier Tuesday, claimed that the administration wants a resolution reached through conversation but also stressed that Trump "has all options on the table."
Appearing on Democracy Now! Wednesday, Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on US-Iranian relations, warned that "we have a very dangerous situation, because both sides actually believe that a short, intense war may improve their negotiating position. The Trump administration, of course, believes that because of its overwhelming military power that it has now gathered in the vicinity of Iran, it will be able to take out Iran militarily rather quickly and then force it to capitulate."
"The Iranians have a different calculation," Parsi continued. "They believe that they have the ability to inflict significant damage on the United States in the short term, including on civilian oil installations in the region, closing down the Strait of Hormuz, that would shoot up oil prices, and the initial cost of this to the United States would be so immense, and the United States would recognize that it would have to go for a longer war, which it cannot afford, and as a result, it would get the United States to back off."
Parsi previously led the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which said in a Wednesday statement that the anonymous Trump official's comment about a 90% chance of an armed conflict with Iran "should trigger immediate action from Congress, the branch of government legally and constitutionally charged with deciding when the US goes to war."
"With extensive military deployments underway and public signals that diplomacy may soon be abandoned, the risk of a large-scale, prolonged, and senseless conflict is immediate and real," NIAC argued. "A war on Iran would not help Iranians demanding change in the face of government repression but instead kill innocent people, create instability inside Iran, and ignite a regionwide conflict."
The Republican-controlled Congress has so far shown an unwillingness to stand up to Trump's violence abroad, with multiple war powers resolutions about Venezuela and his boat bombings on high seas failing. Still, NIAC pressured lawmakers to act now, emphasizing that "a war with Iran would carry enormous regional consequences, endanger American service members and Iranian civilians alike, destabilize global markets, and risk spiraling escalation across the region and diminished civil liberties at home."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Threatens to Intervene, Iranian Protesters Warn US, Israel 'Want Entire Region in Chaos'
"This government has shown that it is not capable of reform," said one Iranian demonstrator. "On the other side, there are Trump and Netanyahu, both of whom are war criminals."
Jan 13, 2026
President Donald Trump has threatened to launch military strikes against Iran, purportedly to help anti-government protesters who are demanding change amid an economic crisis.
However, Middle East Eye spoke with some of the Iranian demonstrators and found they had little appetite for interference from either the US or Israel.
A 39-year-old protester from Tehran, who identified only as Sara, said that Israel's record of bombing countries in the region made her suspicious of any offer that its government would make to help the Iranian protest movement.
"Over the past one or two years, Israel has attacked almost every country in the region," she said. "They want the entire region to be in chaos while they remain safe."
Sara also emphasized that "we want regime change, but we do not want our country to be destroyed."
A 28-year-old demonstrator named Reza also expressed skepticism of Israel and US offers to help even while stating his fierce opposition to the Iranian government.
"On one side, this government has shown that it is not capable of reform and knows nothing but repression," he said. "On the other side, there are Trump and Netanyahu, both of whom are war criminals."
The Middle East Eye report noted that Trump, unlike past presidents, has not even offered a pretense of wanting to bring democracy to Iran to justify military action and has instead stated his desire to seize foreign nations' resources, such as when he declared that the US would take control of petroleum production in Venezuela after the US military abducted President Nicolás Maduro.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, earlier this month expressed solidarity with the Iranian protesters while also warning Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to butt out.
"The outbreak of protests in Iran over the past week has been led by Iranians suffering under tremendous economic pressure and repression," said Abdi. "It is the Iranian people’s movement and they deserve to be heard, not President Trump or Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who cannot and should not try to speak for them. President Trump’s decision to insert himself and threaten military intervention at this moment is profoundly reckless. It distracts from the legitimate grievances of Iranians and risks being exploited to justify a more violent government crackdown."
The Iranian government has responded to the protests with violence and mass arrests of demonstrators, and the government has blacked out internet access for its citizens.
The exact death toll resulting from the Iranian government's crackdown is not known, although the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency estimated as of Monday night that more than 500 people had been killed, while an unnamed Iranian official told Reuters on Tuesday that 2,000 people had been killed so far, including Iranian security forces.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Again Threatens to Bomb Iran as Protest Deaths Near 600
"Under the guise of caring about Iranian people, the US is suffocating Iran to justify bombings and regime change," said one peace group.
Jan 12, 2026
The White House on Monday ramped up threats to attack Iran while President Donald Trump announced 25% tariffs on countries doing business with the Islamic Republic, where the death toll from two weeks of protests against economic hardship exacerbated by US sanctions and government repression rose to at least 599 people.
While Trump acknowledged that Iranian leaders want to negotiate with the United States to avoid renewed US attacks on the country like last summer's airstrikes targeting nuclear facilities and scientists, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that the president reserves all options, including military force, amid Tehran's deadly crackdown on protesters.
"Airstrikes would be one of the many, many options that are on the table for the commander-in-chief," Leavitt said. "Diplomacy is always the first option for the president."
In an ominous development, the virtual US Embassy for Iran on Monday advised all Americans to "leave Iran now" and “have a plan for departing Iran that does not rely on US government help.”
In a Monday post on his Truth Social network, Trump said: "Effective immediately, any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the United States of America. This Order is final and conclusive."
Trump’s escalation of sanctions will make life even harder for millions of Iranians.Under the guise of caring about Iranian people, the US is suffocatating Iran to justify bombings & regime change.
[image or embed]
— CODEPINK (@codepink.bsky.social) January 12, 2026 at 2:38 PM
This followed Friday's threat by Trump that the US is "locked and loaded" for attacks on Iran if the country's security forces keep killing protesters. At least 599 people have been killed during the demonstrations, even as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed Monday that “the situation has come under total control."
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement Monday that "as Iranian Americans, we are horrified by the images and reports emerging from Iran showing brutal state violence inflicted on civilians to suppress their protests and demands."
"We condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on peaceful protestors in the strongest possible terms and urge for accountability for what, according to the information we are receiving, appears to have been a massacre," NIAC continued.
“We continue to reject the prospect of the US answering the Iranian government’s brutality with bombing," the group stressed. "Military interventions have not brought democracy, human rights, or prosperity to the targets of prior interventions, including Iraq, Libya, Palestine, and Afghanistan."
"Iran’s long history is riddled with examples of external interventions and military actions that have only robbed Iranians of their agency to decide their future," NIAC added. "The future of Iran must be shaped by Iranians, not by repression, foreign militarism, or those seeking to exploit suffering to justify war. There is no credible case that US military intervention would protect Iranian lives."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate GOP and Fetterman Block Effort to Stop Trump's War on Iran
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," one campaigner stressed after lawmakers refused to advance the resolution.
Jun 27, 2025
Nearly all U.S. Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania on Friday evening blocked a resolution that reiterated Congress' authority to declare war and would have ordered President Donald Trump to stop taking military action against Iran without congressional approval.
Every other member of the Democratic Caucus and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supported holding a final vote on the resolution—which Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, announced last week, before Trump's weekend bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war."
Citing the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Kaine's measure states that "the question of whether United States forces should be engaged in hostilities against Iran should be answered following a full briefing to Congress and the American public of the issues at stake, a public debate in Congress, and a congressional vote."
Pointing to various other federal laws, Kaine's resolution "directs the president to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran."
In a statement after Friday's 47-53 vote, Kaine said that "the Framers of our Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war because they believed that the decision to send our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way was too big for any one person. The Trump administration's chaotic strategy on Iran confused the American people and created significant risks for service members and their families."
"I am disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress needs to be part of a decision as important as whether or not the U.S. should send our nation's sons and daughters to fight against Iran," Kaine added. "I will continue to do all I can to keep presidents of any party from starting wars without robust public debate by Congress."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, was among the lawmakers who spoke in support of Kaine's resolution ahead of the vote. "We do not need another unnecessary and costly war. We have had enough of them," he said on the Senate floor, pointing out that the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq were "based on a series of lies."
"We should not go to war against Iran," Sanders declared. He condemned Trump's recent attack on the Middle Eastern country as "unconstitutional," and argued that "diplomacy is a better path," as demonstrated by the nuclear deal in 2015—which Trump ultimately ditched during his first term.
Sanders also made the case that the U.S. should not be allied with "war criminal" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who started the bombing of Iran and is wanted by the International Criminal Court for his mass slaughter of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"Enough is enough," the senator said, noting that the U.S. gives Netanyahu's government billions of dollars in annual military aid. "It is beyond absurd that we continue to finance Israel's wars while neglecting the needs of our own people."
Meanwhile, in response to a question from a BBC reporter on Friday, Trump said that he would "without question, absolutely" consider bombing Iran again if intelligence suggested the country could enrich uranium to a level that concerned him.
After the Senate vote, National Iranian American Council president Jamal Abdi said that the outcome "says more about the makeup of the Senate than it does the merits of the resolution. Regardless, we saw a near majority do the right thing and stand up against war and for democracy, despite a cavalcade of misinformation from war hawks. We will continue to press the case that war with Iran is against U.S. interests and U.S. security, and redouble our work to prevent the conflict from reigniting."
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war," he continued, noting the cease-fire between Israel and Iran that Trump announced earlier this week.
"Though a cease-fire is holding for now, the most certain way to guarantee peace is through an abandonment of war and a bold pursuit of sincere negotiations," Abdi added. "We urge our Members of Congress to change course, and urgently support a return to U.S.—Iran talks and a diplomatic pathway forward for both countries."
We took an oath to defend the Constitution - just like every Senator. Today, Republicans broke that oath. We WILL hold them accountable. (2/2)
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) June 27, 2025 at 7:09 PM
Also responding to the Friday development in a statement, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian asserted that "today's vote sends a powerful message: There is a bipartisan movement to reject more war in the Middle East and prevent us from being unilaterally dragged into war before Congress and the American people can have their say."
"We thank Sen. Kaine for his leadership and Sen. Paul for his principled vote to stand up for the Constitution," Kharrazian said, urging the House of Representatives to pass a similar resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Ahead of the Senate's vote, more than 41,000 people nationwide had signed a petition from the progressive group MoveOn Civic Action that calls on Congress to vote for the resolutions in both chambers.
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," Kharrazian emphasized. "The U.S. must lead with restraint, not repeat the mistakes of endless war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fury Grows Over Democratic Complacency in Face of Looming War of Choice in Iran
"It's embarrassing that some problematic far-right figures are speaking out more forcefully against direct military action than the so-called leaders of the opposition," said the executive director of Our Revolution.
Jun 19, 2025
With just a relative handful of Democratic lawmakers backing legislation that would compel President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for an attack on Iran and many more Democrats voicing support for Israel as it kills hundreds of Iranian civilians while continuing its annihilation of Gaza, progressives on Thursday implored voters to pressure their representatives to oppose yet another U.S. war of choice.
While Trump has reportedly approved plans to join a war that fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says is meant to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons that every U.S. administration this century—including his own—says Tehran is not trying to build, Democratic pushback against possible war has largely been limited to three pieces of proposed legislation that would require lawmakers' approval for military action, as mandated by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, also known as the War Powers Act.
"If your argument is that Trump is an authoritarian danger to democracy but sure, let's follow him into another war, you are a complete fraud."
Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt) No War With Iran Act, which has just seven co-sponsors, would prohibit use of federal funds for an attack on Iran. A separate Senate bill introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) would also block Trump from waging war on Iran absent congressional approval, while a similar measure put forth in the House by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California has drawn the support of 15 Democratic colleagues.
Meanwhile, under relentless pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—which spent over $100 million in the 2024 election cycle on largely successful efforts to oust progressive opponents of Israel's war on Gaza—dozens of congressional Democrats have voiced support for Israel's unprovoked and illegal attack on Iran, which has killed or wounded around 2,000 people and prompted Iranian retaliation that has left hundreds of Israelis dead or injured.
On Wednesday, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution praising and expressing support for Israel's so-called "preemptive" war on Iran. Sherman's measure is backed by more than a dozen Republican lawmakers and a pair of Democrats, Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.). Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have both also publicly backed Israel.
"This is now defining for the Democratic Party," Khanna asserted in the face of his party's ambivalence. "Are we going to criticize the offensive weapons for Netanyahu and the blank check? Are we going to stand up with clarity against the strikes on Iran? Are we going to actually be the party of peace, or are we going to be just another party of war?"
On @chrislhayes.bsky.social, I called on @schumer.senate.gov to support @kaine.senate.gov, @sanders.senate.gov, Rep. Massie & my resolution opposing a war in Iran. This is a defining moment for our party where too many blundered in supporting the Iraq war.Now we need to be clear — no war in Iran.
[image or embed]
— Ro Khanna (@rokhanna.bsky.social) June 18, 2025 at 8:13 PM
Other Democrats, including but by no means limited to Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio)—who have collectively raked in more than $2.2 million in campaign cash from the pro-Israel lobby, according to Track AIPAC—have voiced support for attacking Iran.
"The Democratic Party has an AIPAC problem," Our Revolution executive director Joseph Geevarghese told Common Dreams Thursday. "Too many of its leaders seem more afraid of crossing a powerful lobbying group than they are of dragging the U.S. into another costly regime change war."
"It's embarrassing that some problematic far-right figures are speaking out more forcefully against direct military action than the so-called leaders of the opposition," he added. "Much like [former President] Joe Biden's indefensible handling of the genocide in Gaza, this is yet another example of Democrats squandering their credibility with young, progressive, and independent-leaning voters."
RootsAction national director Norman Solomon—author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death—told Common Dreams Thursday that "current members of Congress, in effect, belong to a war party or a peace party—and it has nothing to do with whether they have a 'D' or an 'R' after their names."
"Many Democrats in Congress—who were silent while Trump killed the Obama-era nuclear deal during his first term and then President Biden refused to revive it—are now trying to score partisan points against Trump without clearly and emphatically opposing any U.S. direct attack on Iran, let alone opposing Israel's immense war crime of launching an aggressive war on Iran," he added.
Like Solomon, progressive economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs noted that "there are warmongers in both parties, and peacemakers in both parties."
"An antiwar coalition is possible but needs to be bipartisan," he told Common Dreams.
Some of the most vocal opponents of a U.S. attack on Iran—a country that hasn't started a war since the mid-19th century when it was the Persian Empire, but has endured U.S. regime change and destabilization efforts for 70 years—have been Iranian Americans.
"There is deep frustration and disappointment across our community with the Democratic Party's overall reluctance to meet the moment with the urgency and moral clarity it demands," Isabella Javidan, communications manager at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), told Common Dreams Thursday.
"While some lawmakers are thankfully backing War Powers Resolutions to prevent unauthorized U.S. military involvement, too many Democrats are either silent or hedging, despite an illegal and catastrophic assault that has already killed hundreds of civilians in Iran and dragged the U.S. to the brink of war," Javidan continued.
"This isn't just about diplomacy or restraint, it's also about preventing history from repeating itself," Javidan added. "The U.S. has been here before, and we know what happens when political leaders fail to speak out against reckless, one-sided escalations. Many in our community are alarmed that, despite the human toll, there's an absence of strong Democratic leadership publicly opposing the warpath being laid out by Netanyahu and endorsed by some in Congress."
Referring to the recent U.S. intelligence assessment which, like several before it, concluded that Iran is not seeking nukes, Branko Marcetic lamented in a Jacobin article published Wednesday that "pro-war officials, both Democrat and Republican, have simply decided to pretend this never happened."
In a separate piece for Responsible Statecraft, Marcetic noted that even progressive Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon referenced "Iran's nuclear ambitions."
Ironically, much of Trump's 2016 foreign policy platform involved excoriating the Bush administration's lies about Iraq's nonexistent quest for weapons of mass destruction.
"Trump is now a fingernail's length away from doing exactly what he bashed Bush for doing in order to kickstart his political ascent," Marcetic wrote for Jacobin.
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former senior foreign policy adviser to Sanders, said on social media that "any Democrat who can't stand up and speak out now against the Trump-Netanyahu regime change war should not even consider running in 2028. You're not who this country needs."
"Seriously," Duss continued, "if your argument is that Trump is an authoritarian danger to democracy but sure, let's follow him into another war, you are a complete fraud."
"Any Democrat who can't stand up and speak out now against the Trump-Netanyahu regime change war should not even consider running in 2028."
Duss quipped, "I'll be accepting apologies from everyone who insisted we needed to welcome Bill Kristol in our coalition," referring to the "never-Trump" neoconservative co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, who has been an Iran hawk for decades.
There's a politically expedient motivator for eschewing war on Iran—it's unpopular among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. An Economist/YouGov poll published earlier this week found that 60% of all respondents oppose U.S. involvement in the war, while just 16% supported military action and 24% were unsure. A slim majority of 2024 Trump voters don't want war with Iran and slightly more Republican respondents than Democrats support U.S. negotiations with Iran.
Astonishing that only 16% of Americans think the US should join Israel’s war on Iran but so few Democrats are speaking out against it. The gaping disconnect between Dem politicians and the Dem base we saw on Gaza continues to cripple effective opposition.
[image or embed]
— Abu Aardvark’s Ghost (@abuaardvark.bsky.social) June 18, 2025 at 9:11 AM
"What this all boils down to," said Solomon, "is the imperative for all of us to demand that the U.S. not engage in any military action against Iran and insist that Israel halt its war of aggression—and that the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran for a new nuclear deal be resumed and completed for an agreement."
"As constituents, we need to let all elected officials know that pursuit of peace is essential—and anything less is an insane push toward nuclear annihilation," he added.
Disclosure: The author of this article recently served as the co-chair of San Francisco Berniecrats, an Our Revolution affiliate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy