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
strait of hormuz
'Imagine All the Better Things That Could Have Been Done': Trump Has Blown $37.5 Billion on Iran War
"THIS from the administration that said there was no money for food assistance, Medicaid, and healthcare tax credits."
Jul 21, 2026
While economists have warned for months that the true cost of President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran could be trillions of dollars, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth estimated on Tuesday that it's currently about $37.5 billion.
That figure came from a line of questioning by US Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), as Hegseth appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee to support Trump's June supplemental funding request, which includes tens of billions for the Pentagon.
Hegseth told Durbin that the $37.5 billion estimate includes what's been spent so far, plus some projected spending through the end of the fiscal year in September—an exchange quickly met with fury by various critics, many of whom pointed out the range of ways that money could have been better spent by an administration allegedly dedicated to combating "waste, fraud, and abuse."
"Imagine all the better things that could have been done with $37.5 billion," Jonathan Cohn, political director for the group Progressive Mass, wrote on Bluesky.
Noting that the Strait of Hormuz "is still closed," progressive writer Alex Cole similarly said, "Imagine what $37.5 billion could've done for veterans, schools, or healthcare."
Congressman James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) specifically noted: "That could cover a full school year of free lunches for 30 million children. Or a full year of childcare for nearly 2 million kids."
"Trump finds money for war while families get excuses," he added, as working people struggle with rising costs of housing, groceries, and gasoline—the price of which has soared due to Iran restricting strait traffic over US attacks.
Trump’s war on Iran has so far cost taxpayers $37.5 BILLION.As if skyrocketing gas prices weren’t enough, Trump also expects us to foot this bill.Trump’s illegal forever war has spiraled out of control.
— Public Citizen (@publiccitizen.bsky.social) July 21, 2026 at 5:00 PM
The liberal political group American Bridge 21st Century highlighted how Trump and congressional Republicans have attacked programs for working families while giving more tax cuts to billionaires and waging war on Iran.
"THIS from the administration that said there was no money for food assistance, Medicaid, and healthcare tax credits," the organization said.
Since Trump joined with Israel to start bombing Iran on February 28, most congressional Democrats, legal experts, and other critics have argued that the war—for which the president never secured support from Congress—is not only foolish but also unlawful under both international and US law.
Citing Trump’s attempts to evade limits of the War Powers Act of 1973, Congressman John Larson (D-Conn.) said Monday that he is preparing legal action against the administration and a new bill to cut off funding for the war on Iran, which has killed over 3,000 people according to the Iranian government.
Previous war cost estimates from the US Department of Defense have been met with scrutiny. After Pentagon comptroller Jules "Jay" Hurst offered the $25 billion figure in April, Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated that the government spent at least $71.8 billion during the first two months of the war, or around $1.2 billion per day.
As for the US death toll, at least 17 service members have been killed and many more wounded. The New York Times revealed Monday that the Pentagon hid dozens of American military injuries from Iranian strikes on bases in Jordan last week.
Two Iranian-Americans, a US veteran, and a nurse disrupted Hegseth's Tuesday appearance before the Senate, according to CodePink. In addition to that anti-war group, the protesters were from the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and Vets About Face DMV.
"Pete Hegseth and this administration will be remembered for the killing of innocent civilians and children. They have protected neither the American people nor our security, only the interests that have lined their pockets,” said Bella of NIAC, who joined the protest, in a statement.
"While Americans struggle to afford their lives, this government always finds billions to bomb our families in Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, and elsewhere," Bella added. "This is a repugnant betrayal of humanity. It is illegal, and the American people will hold them accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No to War': Iranian Civil Society Issues Call for Peace as US Assault Intensifies
"We believe that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people desire peace and the right to live a dignified life."
Jul 20, 2026
As the US ramps up its assault against Iran with daily bombings and threatens a full ground invasion, hundreds of public figures from across Iranian civil society issued an urgent call for peace on Sunday.
Two hundred sixty-eight prominent Iranians—including political activists, academics, former members of Parliament, religious figures, labor leaders, and others—signed a joint declaration calling for a "complete and unconditional end of war, and the cessation of all threats, incitement to hatred, and warmongering."
"We believe that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people desire peace and the right to live a dignified life," the statement says. "Therefore, since no decision should be imposed upon the country against the will of its people... we firmly remind all governments, military forces involved in the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and all members of the international community that violating this fundamental right of the Iranian people is a grave injustice against a nation that does not want war and stands for peace."
"Despite all our differences, we raise our collective voice to say 'No to War,'" the letter continued. "We sincerely call upon all our fellow Iranians—regardless of gender, political or ideological beliefs, religion, ethnicity, or any other distinction—to join this call and strengthen its echo by adding their voices."
The declaration ends with a quote from the 13th-century Persian poet Saadi Shirazi: "Even if you possess the strength of an elephant or the claws of a lion, to me, peace is still better than war."
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) emphasized the "breadth of the signatories," which span large swaths of political opinion and reflect "a rare convergence across Iran’s deeply fragmented political landscape."
Among the signatories are Kak Hassan Amini, a Sunni activist; Faezeh Hashemi, a former member of Iran's Parliament and the daughter of former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; teachers' labor rights activist Maryam Kabiri; former Parliament members Elaheh Koulaei and Parvaneh Salahshouri; and former Central Bank Gov. Valiollah Seif.
The letter comes as the US has conducted nine consecutive nights of bombings following a short-lived truce in June. Earlier strikes targeted areas around the Strait of Hormuz—which Iran again sealed off as June's memorandum of understanding collapsed.
In recent days, US strikes have begun to creep inland. In addition to military infrastructure, the US has attacked facilities relied upon by civilians, including bridges, roads, a train station, an airport, and energy infrastructure.
In retaliation for strikes that killed two US service members in Jordan over the weekend, the US launched another round of strikes on Monday that struck the construction site of a planned nuclear power plant, according to Iran's atomic energy agency.
Iranian authorities have said that at least 50 people have been killed and at least 517 wounded in the latest round of US strikes. At least 3,500 Iranians have been killed since the US and Israel attacked Iran in late February, including more than 1,700 confirmed civilians, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA).
At least 17 US troops have been killed since the war began, with Iran's strikes in Jordan killing 25-year-old 1st Lt. James Feehan and 19-year-old Pvt. Isabella Gonzales over the weekend. Another soldier has also gone missing and has not yet been publicly identified.
President Donald Trump vowed in a social media post on Monday that "every time Iran kills an American Soldier” going forward “they will pay for that killing many times over.”
With Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz once again causing global oil prices to soar, the Trump administration is reportedly mulling a full-scale ground invasion of Kharg Island and areas of coastline near the strait, which experts have warned would require hundreds of thousands of American troops and likely lead to many more casualties.
Democrats in Congress responded to the deaths of two more US soldiers by renewing calls to end the conflict.
"These brave troops gave their lives in service to our nation," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "How many more must die for Trump’s war of choice?"
Trump's escalations come despite the US House of Representatives and Senate passing a war powers resolution last month that directed him to withdraw troops from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pentagon Has Been Hiding Reports on Soldiers Injured During Trump's Illegal Iran War
The report comes as Trump considers a "wider war" including a ground invasion that could require hundreds of thousands of US troops.
Jul 20, 2026
After months of downplaying the number of American casualties from President Donald Trump's war in Iran, The New York Times revealed that the Pentagon once again hid dozens of US military injuries from Iranian strikes on bases in Jordan last week.
As the Times reported on Monday:
In the week leading up to the Iranian attack on Friday that killed two US soldiers and left one service member missing in Jordan, Iran carried out three other strikes against US forces in the country.
Those attacks injured dozens of US service members and damaged several helicopters, according to several US officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.
But the Pentagon did not disclose the earlier strikes, nor the casualties and damage they inflicted.
The Pentagon's failure to disclose full information about US casualties is not a new development.
In the early days of the war, Defense Department officials said fewer than a dozen American troops had been injured before abruptly acknowledging that more than 140 had been wounded after Reuters obtained the full figures.
After six American soldiers were killed during the war's opening salvo, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth derided the press's inquiries about the number of casualties, claiming they were only seeking "to make the president look bad."
The Intercept's Nick Turse found in April that US Central Command (CENTCOM) had repeatedly sent outdated and incomplete casualty figures to journalists in what one defense official referred to as a "casualty cover-up."
As of April 1, Turse reported that more than 520 US troops had been injured, including more than 200 sailors being treated for smoke inhalation, without acknowledgment from the government.
Last week—prior to the deaths of two US soldiers in Jordan—CENTCOM said that a total of 414 service members had been injured since the war began, mostly from traumatic brain injuries. In total, 17 US personnel have now been killed, according to official counts.
CENTCOM spokesperson Maj. Emma Thompson said last week that she had no update on how many troops were seriously wounded, but claimed that "almost all" of those injured had returned to duty. She also did not say how many troops had been wounded enough to be evacuated from the region.
The Times report notes that CENTCOM is not required to disclose information about injured US service members publicly. And one military official argued that doing so would provide Iran with free information that would leave the US vulnerable to further attacks.
However, it does speak to the Trump administration's ever-growing secrecy as it threatens to dramatically expand the unpopular conflict.
As the Times noted, the Pentagon has provided little information about the war in recent months, and the last major press briefing on the war took place in early May.
The administration has blown past its initial promises to end its operation against Iran in a matter of weeks and avoid a "forever war." The conflict is now into its fifth month with no end in sight.
The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reported this weekend that in an effort to break Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz—where it began to restrict travel in response to the US-Israeli war—Trump is planning a "wider war" that may include a possible ground invasion of Kharg Island and other Iranian territory along the strait.
Experts have estimated that efforts to capture and occupy Iran's coastline would likely require hundreds of thousands of troops.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Diesel Hits $5 Per Gallon in US, 33% Higher Than Before Trump Launched War Against Iran
The latest supply crunch comes at a time when "US gasoline inventories have become critically low," said one analyst.
Jul 16, 2026
President Donald Trump's decision to restart his illegal war with Iran has sent the price of oil back up, leading to a corresponding rise in the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel.
Data published by AAA on Thursday showed that the average price of diesel in the US is once again over $5 per gallon, which is 33% higher than the average price of diesel before Trump unlawfully attacked Iran without congressional authorization in February.
Oil industry analyst Patrick De Haan wrote in a Thursday social media post that diesel fuel powers "the trucks that move nearly everything you buy—groceries, goods, supplies," meaning the current spike will lead to "higher prices down the line" for other key goods.
According to a Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal, the rise in diesel prices is unlikely to be short-lived given that there are now multiple factors pushing costs higher.
In addition to the resumption of the Iran war, the Journal writes, Russia has now banned diesel exports after its refineries came under attack by Ukraine. And in the US, domestic stockpiles of the fuel have now fallen to their lowest levels in 20 years.
Given all these factors, analysts told the Journal that diesel prices "could soon climb an additional 20 to 25 cents a gallon."
An analysis published on Thursday by CNN Business senior reporter David Goldman pointed to another factor pushing diesel prices higher: Global refining capacities have taken a significant hit since the start of the Iran war.
Goldman noted that Iran has "damaged or destroyed 30 Middle Eastern refineries" since the start of the conflict, causing global refinery output to fall by "3 million barrels at the peak of the Strait of Hormuz disruption, and 2.1 million barrels of refining capacity remain offline."
Energy analyst John Kemp said on Thursday that the diesel supply crunch will likely spill over to the price of regular gasoline in the coming weeks.
"US gasoline inventories have become critically low," Kemp explained in a social media post, "as domestic refiners prioritize production of jet fuel and diesel to replace global supplies hit by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Ukraine's escalating attacks on Russia's refineries."
Kemp added that the US gasoline stocks "have depleted in 13 of the last 16 weeks by a total of 43 million barrels" since the start of the war, making it "by far the largest [depletion] on record for the time of year, and three times faster than average over the last decade."
In an interview with Bloomberg published on Wednesday, International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol warned that renewed fighting between the US and Iran was again threatening to create a global fuel supply crisis that could come in "not months" but "weeks."
"If the Strait of Hormuz remains closed," Birol said, "we may again have some difficulty for global economies, including those in the region and developing nations and Asia."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iranian Foreign Minister: Trump 'Absolutely Right' About Guarding Strait of Hormuz—But Iran Will Charge 'Fair' Price
Just weeks after Trump's secretary of state admitted that "no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway," the president demanded 20%, far higher than the 1-2% sought by Iran.
Jul 13, 2026
The Iranian foreign minister on Monday mocked President Donald Trump's announcement that he was renewing the US blockade of Iran and that he expected a 20% fee from commercial vessels for "guarding" the key waterway.
"POTUS is absolutely right," the minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, wrote on social media. "Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service."
"Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER," he added. "20% is of course too much. We will be fair."
Trump had called in to "Fox & Friends" on Monday. He said on-air that the United States would be "the guardian angel of the strait" and "we're gonna get paid for guarding it."
Later Monday morning, he had written on Truth Social that "the U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World."
Critics and experts have highlighted that Trump's 20% toll is far higher than the 1-2% sought by Iran, and warned that Trump had perhaps unintentionally bolstered Iran's case for imposing its own fee on ships in the strait.
Others have pointed out that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told journalists just a few weeks ago that "no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That's existing international law. That's the way it is in international waterways all over the world, and that's the way we expect it'll be here. So I don't think we have anybody to convince around here in that regard. I think all the countries in this region would agree with us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Revives Iran Blockade, Demands 20% Toll for US 'Guarding' Strait of Hormuz
Critics noted that "20% of the value of any cargo is actually substantially MORE than Iran is seeking to charge ships to transit the strait."
Jul 13, 2026
Following fresh US airstrikes against Iran over the weekend, President Donald Trump said Monday that the United States would reimpose a naval blockade on the Mideast country, serve as the "guardian" of the Strait of Hormuz, and charge a 20% toll for cargo ships trying to safely travel on the key trade route.
Trump made the comments while calling in to "Fox & Friends" on Monday morning, as well as on his Truth Social platform.
"We're just gonna hit them very hard, and we're gonna keep the strait, and we'll probably run it. We'll become the guardian of the strait. Maybe we'll call it the guardian angel of the strait. And we should be reimbursed for that," Trump said on the Fox News morning show.
"When we do that, we're gonna be reimbursed, because the other nations are very wealthy. They're on our side, and we can't be expected to do that for nothing," the president said. "Now we're gonna guard it, and we're gonna get paid for guarding it—a lot of money."
Later Monday morning, Trump wrote on Truth that "the Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran. We are reinstating the THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE, so named because it is only stopping Iran's ships or customers from entering or leaving. All other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait."
"The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as 'THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,' but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World," he added. "The process and formation will begin immediately."
Bloomberg energy and commodities columnist Javier Blas pointed to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's remarks just a couple of weeks ago that "no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway."
Critics and experts were also quick to note that, as immigration attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick put on the platform X, "20% of the value of any cargo is actually substantially MORE than Iran is seeking to charge ships to transit the strait."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, quipped that it "seems like Trump just made a pitch for the Iranian toll system. :) Because the Iranians were going to charge $1 million per ship, which would amount to 1-2% of the value of the cargo of an oil tanker. But Trump is going to charge 20%! :)"
In an early Monday blog post, Parsi had written that "for all practical purposes, the US-Iran memorandum of (mis)understanding is over. The dispute over how to manage the Strait of Hormuz in the interim has pushed the two sides back into open war."
As Parsi explained:
The dispute over the strait turns, at least on the surface, on paragraph 5 of the MOU: whether Iran is responsible for safe passage throughout the strait for the duration of the agreement, or only for the waterway's northern corridor.
Beneath the surface, however, lies a more fundamental strategic disagreement. Even before the MOU was signed, Tehran believed Washington's objective was to establish a southern shipping corridor through Omani waters that would gradually erode Iran's control over the strait. Such a corridor would require Oman's cooperation, which may explain why Trump at one point threatened to bomb Oman unless it abandoned its proposal for joint management of the strait, with administrative fees collected by Muscat and Tehran.
The corridor would remain operational even if war resumed and Iran sought once again to close the strait. From Tehran's perspective, Washington used the MOU to strengthen this alternative route, and the US military's escort of commercial shipping without coordinating with Iran marked a significant step in that direction. If successful, the strategy would deprive Iran of its most important source of leverage—which is precisely why it appeals to Washington.
"This is why Tehran has insisted that all ships transiting the strait—regardless of the corridor they use—coordinate with Iran, consistent with its reading of paragraph 5 of the MOU," he continued. "Washington, by contrast, argues that the MOU merely assigns Iran responsibility for ensuring the safe passage of commercial vessels, without granting it operational control over all maritime traffic."
Sina Toossi, a senior nonresident fellow at the Center for International Policy, warned in a statement about Trump's Monday comments that "if implemented, the announced re-blockade would effectively restart the economic clock that the MOU had temporarily paused. Iran would once again face mounting pressure on its ability to export, store, and monetize oil, while the United States and the global economy would again confront the risks of prolonged disruption to Persian Gulf energy flows."
"The strategic environment, however, is no longer what it was before the war," he added. "US strategic petroleum reserves continued to decline during the MOU period and remain at historically low levels, while global inventories also remain tight. As a result, there is less cushion to absorb a prolonged supply disruption than in the previous round of fighting, increasing the risks of sharper energy price spikes, higher inflation, and broader economic disruption."
This article has been updated with comment from Sina Toossi.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lying Trump Says His Approval Is High and Oil Prices Dropping—It’s the Exact Opposite
Trump claimed to have "59% approval" while not a single pollster even has him above water. Meanwhile, oil prices are shooting back up after he restarted the war in Iran.
Jul 13, 2026
It is once again Opposite Day for President Donald Trump, who claimed in a late-night social media post that his approval rating is high and oil prices are dropping, neither of which is actually true.
"59 percent Approval Rating. Prices coming down along with the lowering of oil and gas. Thank you! President DJT," Trump wrote Sunday night on Truth Social.
Trump did not specify what poll had him at 59% approval, presumably because it does not exist. Not a single one of the polls tracked by The New York Times or RealClearPolling's aggregators shows Trump even breaking even with the public.
The Times average as of Monday morning has his approval rating at 39%, with 58% disapproval—on par with the worst metrics of his second term. RCP’s average is only slightly more merciful, showing the president’s approval at just under 40% and his disapproval at 57%.
Even the GOP-friendly pollster Rasmussen shows him with just 44% approval and 54% disapproval—generous outlier numbers for the president.
It is, of course, possible that Trump was referring to some heavily massaged poll that only he has seen, though he has a long history of inflating his popularity while claiming that polls showing otherwise are "fake news."
The price of oil, on the other hand, is something that can't be faked, though it didn't stop Trump from trying.
This weekend, Trump launched a new series of attacks against Iran, after declaring earlier in the week that the peace framework signed last month was “over” and saying negotiations were a “waste of time.”
Iran responded by announcing late Saturday night that it would seal off the Strait of Hormuz to most traffic, once again choking off a main route for global oil and gas transport.
Asked about the closure on Sunday, Trump told reporters, "I don't want to talk about it."
His post seems to reveal a further commitment to denying reality. Contrary to his claim about the "lowering of oil and gas," US gas prices on Monday averaged $3.87 per gallon, up from $3.80 a week earlier.
Meanwhile, the price of Brent crude has shot up by more than 9% over the past week, from $72 per barrel last Monday to nearly $79 as of this writing. At the time of Trump’s tweet, oil prices had already climbed by about 4% and continued to increase into Monday morning.
Prices are down from the war's height in the springtime, when gas surpassed $4.50 per gallon and a barrel of oil cost more than $110. But crude prices are still 9% higher than prewar, while gas is up about 31%, with companies capitalizing on the war to pad their profit margins at the expense of consumers and businesses.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Puts US-Iran War Back to the Beginning
And Trump, in particular, does not have time on his side when taking into account both economic and political realities, and even some military factors.
Jul 13, 2026
For all practical purposes, the US-Iran Memorandum of (Mis)Understanding is over. The dispute over how to manage the Strait of Hormuz in the interim has pushed the two sides back into open war. But to what end?
There is little reason to believe another round of fighting can alter the fundamentals enough to change the reality from which the two sides must ultimately negotiate. If they are fortunate, the MOU’s collapse may yield another round of talks in which the allure of reshaping facts on the ground through force has finally faded.
As I have written elsewhere, the dispute over the Strait turns, at least on the surface, on Paragraph 5 of the MOU: whether Iran is responsible for safe passage throughout the Strait for the duration of the agreement, or only for the waterway’s northern corridor.
Beneath the surface, however, lies a more fundamental strategic disagreement. Even before the MOU was signed, Tehran believed Washington's objective was to establish a southern shipping corridor through Omani waters that would gradually erode Iran's control over the Strait. Such a corridor would require Oman's cooperation, which may explain why Trump at one point threatened to bomb Oman unless it abandoned its proposal for joint management of the Strait, with administrative fees collected by Muscat and Tehran.
The corridor would remain operational even if war resumed and Iran sought once again to close the Strait. From Tehran's perspective, Washington used the MOU to strengthen this alternative route, and the US military's escort of commercial shipping without coordinating with Iran marked a significant step in that direction. If successful, the strategy would deprive Iran of its most important source of leverage — which is precisely why it appeals to Washington.
This is why Tehran has insisted that all ships transiting the Strait — regardless of the corridor they use — coordinate with Iran, consistent with its reading of Paragraph 5 of the MOU. Washington, by contrast, argues that the MOU merely assigns Iran responsibility for ensuring the safe passage of commercial vessels, without granting it operational control over all maritime traffic.
Before the funeral of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the two sides explored a compromise under which ships would coordinate their transit with both Iran and a designated Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) state. As I wrote in my Substack, “Under such an arrangement, ships would notify Tehran while also reporting to a GCC maritime authority, balancing Iran's demand for oversight with Washington's desire to avoid granting Tehran exclusive control.” But no agreement was reached before diplomacy was suspended for the duration of the funeral.
Accounts of what transpired in Muscat over the weekend naturally differ, but three proposals emerged. Iran advanced a variation of the earlier compromise: a dual-notification system for all vessels transiting the Strait. Qatar proposed three channels—an Iranian corridor in the north, an Omani corridor in the south, and a neutral corridor in the middle. For Tehran, this was a nonstarter, as it would effectively restore the Strait to its pre-February status.
According to Tehran, the United States and Oman favored separate management of the Iranian and Omani corridors: Iran could require coordination for vessels using its corridor, while Oman's would remain unrestricted.
Tehran saw this as an attempt to formalize what it had long suspected was Washington's strategy: creating a southern corridor through the Strait beyond Iran's influence, leaving Tehran no means of challenging it short of war with Oman. Iran also contends that Muscat advanced the proposal only under intense US pressure, noting that Oman had previously supported a joint management system.
Washington disputes this account. US officials maintain they were open to several arrangements, provided commercial vessels could transit the Strait safely. According to the American version, the talks unraveled only after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi consulted Tehran regarding a joint Iranian-Omani statement declaring the Strait open. From Washington's perspective, negotiations had been progressing until Araghchi was overruled by hardliners in the IRGC, who chose confrontation over compromise.
Whether such a fracture proved decisive in this instance is unclear. What is clear is that the outlook of Iranian strategists has hardened markedly in recent weeks as they have become increasingly convinced that Trump intends to restart the war. Several developments have reinforced that belief. First, Trump's rhetoric shifted dramatically: he called the Iranians "scum," declared the ceasefire over, and said he might resume bombing to "finish the job."
Second, as I argued here, Tehran believes Washington brokered the Lebanese-Israeli agreement — which contradicts the US-Iran MOU by conditioning Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon on Hezbollah's disarmament — to enable Israel to retain key positions that would weaken Hezbollah's ability to support Iran in the next war.
Third, White House officials leaked the US demand that Tehran declare the Strait open and, at least implicitly, accept responsibility for attacks on shipping. Rather than seeing the leak as political posturing to make Trump appear tough, Tehran increasingly viewed it as a deliberate attempt to derail the talks and steer the crisis back toward military confrontation.
Taken together, these developments convinced Tehran that Washington was preparing to resume the war. From that perspective, Iran's best option was to close the Strait immediately. Rather than an attempt to extract additional concessions or an instance of overplaying its hand, Tehran's decision appears to have been driven by the fear of losing its most important source of leverage before the next round of fighting.
In the view of Iranian decision-makers, closing the Strait would not trigger war because war was already coming. (If their assessment was incorrect, however, Tehran’s own actions have likely created a self-fulfilling prophecy by taking actions that made a military response from Washington next to inevitable).
Still, much indicates that another round of war will not fundamentally change realities on the ground or the balance between the US and Iran. Trump, in particular, does not have time on his side when taking into account both economic and political realities, and even some military factors.
By almost every meaningful measure, the global oil inventory position is materially weaker today than it was before the February war. Since the end of February, observed global oil inventories have fallen by roughly 360–370 million barrels, with only about 21 million barrels rebuilt after the US-Iran MOU—recovering just 5% of the wartime draw.
More importantly, the apparent recovery reflects oil in transit rather than replenished storage: oil on water increased by 117 million barrels, while onshore inventories fell by 96 million barrels. OECD inventories declined by another 62 million barrels in June alone, including roughly 44 million barrels released from government emergency stocks.
The United States also enters any renewed conflict with a substantially smaller strategic cushion. It has fallen from about 415 million barrels before the war to roughly 337 million barrels, while commercial crude, gasoline and distillate inventories all remain below their five-year seasonal averages. Consequently, Washington has significantly less capacity than in February to absorb another major disruption to global oil flows.
In addition, the United States is now only four months away from the midterm elections, dramatically shortening Trump's economic and political pain threshold. In February, the administration could plausibly argue that the oil shock was temporary and that prices would normalize before voters went to the polls. A renewed conflict today would push its most visible economic consequences directly into the campaign: higher gasoline prices, inflation, interest rates, and rising food, airline, freight, and utility costs.
As a Pentagon source told me last year, Iran builds missiles faster than the United States produces missile interceptors. And while Washington must divide its attention and resources among multiple theaters—from Ukraine to Taiwan—Iran has only one.
Thus, although the United States could, given enough time, degrade Iran's ability to threaten shipping in the Persian Gulf, there is little reason to believe it could do so before the economic and political costs became prohibitive for Trump. It is essentially the same strategic reality he confronted in February. The difference is that he lacked the benefit of hindsight then. Now he has it—though it does not appear to have mattered.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Don't Talk About It': Trump Tells Journalists to Stop Asking About Strait of Hormuz After Latest Closure
Despite the strait's closure, Trump insisted it was "open as far as we're concerned."
Jul 12, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Sunday twice told journalists to stop asking him about the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran once again closed after the president declared an end to the ceasefire deal between the two countries.
The first instance came during an interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, who pointed to conflicting statements from the Iranian government and US Central Command about the status of the strait, which is an essential shipping lane for global petroleum supplies.
Trump replied that "it's open, and I don't want to talk about it because I want to honor the life" of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who died on Saturday from what his office described as "a brief and sudden illness."
"So I don't want to talk about it," Trump continued. "I told you that before the call."
WELKER: Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is closed. CENTCOM says it's open. Which is it?
TRUMP: It's open, and I don't want to talk about because I want to honor the life of Lindsey Graham, so I don't want to talk about it. I told you that before the call. pic.twitter.com/3ed7dN1bhK
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Shortly after, during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Trump was again asked whether the strait was still open.
"It's open as far as we're concerned," Trump told Tapper. "Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak."
"Okay," Tapper replied. "We appreciate your time, sir."
TAPPER: Iran has declared the Strait of Hormuz closed. Is that true?
TRUMP: It's open as far as we're concerned. Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak. pic.twitter.com/TwssTycQdF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Iran shut down shipping traffic in the strait after Trump launched an illegal war against the country in late February. The strait's closure resulted in spiking oil and gasoline prices, which coincided with further erosion in Trump's approval ratings.
Although traffic through the strait initially picked up in the wake of a June memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran, it has since slumped as the ceasefire between the two nations has fallen apart.
Ana Marie Cox, contributing editor at The New Republic, bashed both Welker and Tapper for heeding the president's requests and not pushing him to answer questions about the war he unlawfully started.
"Frankly astonished that supposed news sources agreed to terms to interview Trump and appeared to be deferential to them," Cox wrote in a social media post, "enough that they were apologetic in brining up other topics."
Cox's sentiment was echoed by Kai Ryssdal, host of NPR's Marketplace, who remarked that "the guy being interviewed doesn’t get to pick the questions."
Journalist Helen Kennedy challenged Trump's assertion that asking about the status of the Iran war was irrelevant when talking about Lindsey Graham.
"Making war with Iran was Lindsey Graham's favorite thing," Kennedy observed. "It's not like it's unrelated."
Keep ReadingShow Less
When You Aim at Regime Change, Be Careful What You Wish For
When Netanyahu proposed to Trump that they embark on regime change in Iran by assassinating its top leadership, neither seems to have imagined that this action would come back to bite them.
Jul 10, 2026
Soon after the Israeli and US attacks on Iran assassinated its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and four of his family members, as well as other senior leaders, President Donald Trump urged Iranians to rise up, saying: “To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably be your only chance for generations." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did the same in a video addressing the Iranian people, saying, “This is an opportunity that comes only once in every generation.” He called on them to “take to the streets in your millions and unite to bring down the ruling system.”
However, far from creating the outcome they fervently hoped for, the regime that emerged, after further assassinations, is “younger, savvier, ruthless, and more hard-line than ever.”
This is also evidenced by the choice of the second son of Khamenei as the new supreme leader. Mojtaba Khamenei (who was also injured in the attack on the Khamenei residence) was elected by a unanimous vote of the Assembly of Experts—after pressure by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with whom he has close ties. According to the Atlantic Council, “In political ideology and jurisprudence, Khamenei is considered to be more hard-line than his father.” Moreover, a source in Tehran notes: “They’ve just killed his family... He’s bloodthirsty now.”
The hard-liners appear to have further strengthened their hand during the recent week-long funeral events attended by millions. Ultra hard-line politicians are now publicly condemning the Iranian politicians involved in peace talks, including Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibad and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. This may account for the resumption of Iranian attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz in recent days—in spite of the ceasefire—which has led to several new rounds of fighting between the US and Iran.
The Desire for Revenge
The massive funeral event not only confirmed Khamenei’s status as a martyr, but also galvanized a tremendous desire for revenge in the Iranian population, with mourners waving red flags of revenge, chanting, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and carrying signs calling for the killing of Trump and Netanyahu.
On the second day of the events, to thunderous applause, Poet Mohammad Resouli stated ominously: “Why is the most bastard man in the world still alive? The world is no longer a good place for Trump. Why should we not kill the man who killed our imam? It would be a disgrace if we did not.”
Violations of International and Domestic Law
The attacks on Iran were, in fact, a violation of international law, since they do not meet the requirements of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter regarding the right to self-defense but, instead, violate Article 2(4), which states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
In an article in The Guardian, entitled “Into the Void: How Trump Killed International Law,” the authors argue that “amid this chaos, there has been one consistent target for Trump’s contempt: the constraints imposed by international law, and its value system built around national sovereignty, including the prohibition of the use of force...” Indeed, in an interview with The New York Times in January, Trump made this point explicit: “I don’t need international law,” arguing that his power is limited only by “my own morality, my own mind.”
The killing of Khamenei was also in breach of the generally-accepted international taboo against the assassination of leaders. In fact, Trump also violated domestic US law—by violating Executive Order 11906, which states that “no employee of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” This order, signed by President Gerald Ford 50 years ago, followed congressional investigations into previous US assassination plots against foreign leaders, such as Fidel Castro. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both broadened the scope of the ban, which is still in force, by dropping the “political” qualifier, making it illegal to “engage in assassination” per se.
Taboos such as these represent socially agreed-upon norms that certain actions are forbidden, and they play a crucial role in maintaining social order. Their codification in law helps to solidify the regulation of social interaction. Breaking a taboo can have serious consequences that, in extreme circumstances, can trigger violence.
In an article entitled, “Trump Opens the Pandora’s Box of Assassination,” Columbia University historian Timothy Naftali writes:
As killing foreign leaders gets easier for us, harming our leaders also presumably gets easier for others. The international taboo against foreign political assassinations has arguably had a stabilizing effect... To put a fine point on it, however tempting it may be to eliminate troublesome foreign leaders, no policy makers in a democracy wants to spark acts of retaliation that cost the lives of our own leaders in turn.
Luca Trenta and Arturo Jiminez-Bacardi, in “Khamenei Killing and the Perilous Death of the Assassination Ban,” suggest, “When a new Congress is sworn in next year, it should open an investigation into the Khamenei operation, hold public deliberations on the role of assassination in US foreign policy, and finally enact a statutory ban that unambiguously prohibits and criminalizes assassination once and for all.”
The Slippery Slope of Gradually Breaking Taboos
It has been argued that both the US and Israel began lowering their restrictions to the taboo on assassinations (or “targeted killings” as the US likes to call them or “eliminations” as the Israelis call them) in response to major terrorist attacks.
After the horrendous events of 9/11, and during the subsequent “war on terror,” it became common practice for the US to assassinate al-Qaeda operatives, including Osama-bin-Laden, as well as “terrorists” from other groups. Wikipedia offers a long list.
At the end of Trump’s first term, the US took a step closer to assassinating members of government when, on January 3, 2020, it assassinated Qasem Soleimani, “the second most powerful man in Iran,” who was commander of the Quds Force branch of the IRGC—justifying it by calling him a “terrorist” and providing a long list of grievous abuses.
However, it wasn’t long before the dangers of this action became evident, as US authorities uncovered several plots by Iranians to assassinate Trump administration officials associated with the killing, including Trump himself.
Israel also seemed to have increased its policy of “eliminations” following the horrific October 7, 2023 events, by assassinating the Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran in July 2024 and Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in September 2024, as well as many others. A long list is also available on Wikipedia.
Clearly, Trump is already feeling the heat from the Khamenei assassination. In a news conference at the end of the recent NATO summit in Türkiye, he said, “I’m No. 1 on the kill list for Iran,” joking that he would rather be “No. 1 on TikTok.” He added: “They had leaders; they’re gone, and they had another set of leaders; they’re gone. Now they have another set of leaders, they may be gone, who knows, and you know, I may be gone too, because I’m their No. 1 target.”
Indeed, because of concerns for his security, the Secret Service urged Trump to fly from Türkiye to the UK on the old Air Force One (which he did) rather than taking the retrofitted Qatari-gifted plane, since there are questions about whether the new Air Force One has the same defensive systems as the old one.
The intense Iranian desire for revenge will be likely to plague Trump, Netanyahu, members of their administrations, and their security services into the foreseeable future.
Surely it would have been much wiser to have adhered to international and domestic law and to have respected the taboo on the assassination of leaders. After all, this is what international law and established taboos are meant to do—establish rules of behavior to protect the social and international order.
As Trenta and Jimenez-Bacardi state:
The political vacuums that follow the assassination of heads of state can lead to civil war, chaos, unrest, and cycles of revenge. The Khamenei assassination has already turned into a regional war and sparked a global economic crisis. Simply put, a new era of political assassinations is likely to make the world less safe.
Let us hope that the revenge currently being called for in Iran never eventuates. Not only would it be tragic for a US president to be assassinated, but it could also be disastrous for Iran, since Trump has vowed that he would destroy the country in the event that it were successful in assassinating him, saying: “That would be the end. I’ve left instructions, if they do it, they get obliterated, there won’t be anything left.”
This has to be taken seriously since it could lead to even more unspeakable outcomes, potentially the breaking of another crucial taboo—on the use of nuclear weapons.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
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