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
war powers
To Make the US-Iran Deal Stick, Hold Hawks and War Profiteers Accountable
Those who push for and profit from war have learned over many years that neither Republicans or Democrats will hold them accountable. A new Congress post November has a real opportunity to change that.
Jun 23, 2026
Now that an initial diplomatic deal between the US and Iran has been signed and intensive negotiations are under way to fully end the war, Congress should do everything possible to ensure this agreement is fully implemented. While the agreement is likely to have imperfections—thanks in large part to President Donald Trump harming US leverage and interests with a disastrous war—it would be a massive mistake to attack the deal simply because it comes from this president. The key question to consider is what steps Congress can take to ensure it becomes a durable peace—rather than merely a pause before the next round of war.
With all the human loss, destruction, and global stakes, we must stop this war, but also ensure that the conditions of peace don’t lay the groundwork for a return to conflict—or inspire its repetition elsewhere. The political and financial cost of ending this war must fall on those who aided and profited from it. The question is whether we build the safeguards to make it last.
In June 2025, it was already clear that accepting President Trump’s false narrative of absolute victory (claiming to have fully obliterated Iran’s nuclear sites) would not end US-Iran tensions. Any peace will remain fragile if the conditions that produced the war persist: the might-makes-right mindset that proved hollow against Iran’s strategic resilience; the preference for militarism over diplomacy, from Trump’s Joint-Comprehensive Plan-of-Action withdrawal to Biden’s failure to pursue a serious alternative to “maximum pressure” sanctions; the unconditional support for Israel even when it runs counter to US interests.
It is highly possible that during the initial 60 days of negotiations contemplated in the MOU, Israel will continue military action against Iran or in Lebanon to provoke a reaction and restart the cycle. The US cannot fully control what Israel would do. But it can stop aiding and abetting the war, which would make it far more difficult for Israel to sustain a campaign to spoil diplomacy.
The problem is not a single president or party. It is the power structures that ensure those who profit from war never pay its cost, regardless of who holds office.
Military action against Iran failed at producing any of its intended objectives, while it incurred costs that are in some cases irreversible and in others generational. The lives lost will not come back. The destruction of civilian infrastructure will shape Iranian society for decades. And the war has granted perverse legitimacy to a brutal regime, recasting the government of the Islamic Republic not as the oppressor it is, but as David against Goliath, the underdog resistor against foreign aggression. Diplomacy produced better results at far lower cost on every measure that matters.
This war confirmed what few wanted to acknowledge: that US military bases across the Gulf, sold as a projection of strength, are also a profound vulnerability. Each base became a potential target, each host government a hostage to escalation. For many Gulf governments, American military backing is a useful substitute for political legitimacy at home. Yet the war exposed the limits of that bargain: The same shield that promised security also turned them into targets.
Turning the Strait of Hormuz into a battlefield made this dynamic undeniable. Its closure hit energy markets and created rare pressure for de-escalation from Gulf elites who felt the costs directly. But while some elites were squeezed, others made billions. The system is designed so the profiteers are never the ones paying the ultimate price. That is exactly why temporary market pressure is not a substitute for structural accountability to prevent future conflicts.
Those who profit from war have learned over many years that neither Republicans or Democrats will hold them accountable. A new Congress post November has a real opportunity to change that—to serve US interests, meaning the American people, not a select elite. With $72 billion spent on the Iran war, a $1.5 trillion military budget, and war contractors more powerful and unaccountable than ever, Congress needs to investigate all war profiteers, from arms contractors to companies like the drone firm backed by the Trump sons that sought to sell interceptors to the very Gulf states being attacked, a direct conflict of interest.
In a relatively new dystopian innovation in war capitalism during the war, prediction markets like Polymarket saw millions in bets on everything from the timing of strikes to casualty estimates. Suspected insider accounts netted $2.4 million on Iran War bets with a 98% win rate. This kind of betting on war outcomes by those with proximity to power blurs the line between forecasting and profiteering. It must also be addressed.
We do not even have to wait for elections in November to start this process. The growing support for War Powers resolutions with majority house support just this month, and the 40 senators backing the Joint Resolution of Disapproval to withhold certain arms from Israel, show what may be possible when Congress does its job. Congress should condition support, block escalation, and hold hearings on the legality of what has been done.
Such measures would serve a deeper purpose: signaling that a new Congress, and eventually a new administration, can offer something more than a return to the previous status quo: a set of concrete actions that change how war is authorized, how money is spent, and who benefits.
The problem is not a single president or party. It is the power structures that ensure those who profit from war never pay its cost, regardless of who holds office.
Corruption and war profiteering are not merely governance issues. They are theft from the American people, through unaccountable war spending, the unaffordable prices it produces, and an elite class that never pays for the policies it pushes. A Congress that treats corruption and war profiteering as harm against the public and responds accordingly would demonstrate what a functioning democracy actually looks like.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Iran Test: An Identity Crisis at the Heart of Trumpism
Today’s Republican rebellion against Trump does not necessarily stem from opposition to Trumpism itself. In many cases, it arises precisely because some Republicans believe Trumpism is drifting away from its own founding principles.
Jun 09, 2026
The Republican revolt against President Donald Trump began over an issue that was never supposed to become a crisis: another war in the Middle East.
In recent weeks, a group of Republican members of Congress has openly challenged the White House—not over taxes, immigration, or even the budget, but over the most fundamental power of any president: the authority to lead the country into war. When several Republicans chose to stand alongside Democrats and support efforts to limit the president’s war powers, something greater than a routine legislative vote took place. This was not merely a legal disagreement over the interpretation of the Constitution; it was a sign of a deeper fracture emerging at the core of a movement that was once united around Trump’s leadership.
In Washington, politicians have often voted against presidents from opposing parties. But when members of a party are willing to confront their own president on the most sensitive issue imaginable—war and peace—we are no longer dealing with a tactical disagreement. This is the moment when intellectual and ideological divisions begin to reveal themselves through political behavior.
The central question is not why a handful of Republicans have found themselves at odds with Trump. The more important question is why this disagreement has emerged precisely over an issue that was once one of the foundational pillars of Trump’s political project.
Iran today is more than just a foreign-policy issue; it is a test of Trumpism’s political credibility.
To understand the significance of this development, one must return to 2016.
Trump’s success was not simply the product of economic frustration or public dissatisfaction with political elites. He was able to build a new coalition because he was willing to challenge one of the most sacred assumptions of Washington’s foreign-policy establishment. While many Republicans continued to defend the legacy of two decades of American military interventions, Trump called the Iraq War a disaster. He argued that the United States had spent trillions of dollars in the Middle East, lost thousands of its soldiers, and still failed to achieve the security and stability it had been promised.
For millions of voters, these remarks were not merely a critique of a single war. They represented the declaration of the end of an era.
Trump promised them that America would no longer become entangled in endless wars. He pledged to separate foreign policy from idealistic nation-building projects and open-ended missions, and to refocus it on tangible American interests. It was precisely from this promise that the slogan “America First” drew much of its power.
A significant portion of Trump’s political base was neither isolationist nor anti-power. They believed America should remain strong, but that strength should not require perpetual involvement in distant conflicts. They supported a president who claimed to have learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is why Iran today is more than just a foreign-policy issue; it is a test of Trumpism’s political credibility.
For many Republicans, the primary concern is not Iran itself, but the memory of Iraq. Once again, they see familiar warning signs: escalating tensions, gradually expanding objectives, requests for broader executive authority, and arguments that tie American security to the complex dynamics of the Middle East. These similarities are enough to prompt some conservatives to warn against repeating the mistakes of the past.
This is why the votes cast by some Republicans in favor of restricting presidential war powers have acquired symbolic significance. These votes were not merely attempts to restrain a specific policy decision; they were efforts to prevent a return to a pattern that Trump himself once claimed to oppose.
In reality, a segment of the Republican Party now faces a paradox that few would have imagined in 2016. They find themselves in the position of having to oppose certain decisions by Trump in order to defend the very principles that originally drew them toward him.
This is the point at which political disagreements evolve into an identity crisis.
At the same time, the issue extends beyond war itself. In the United States, wars have never been purely military phenomena. They shape the economy, influence domestic politics, affect public spending, and alter the balance of power within government. Major wars often lead to the expansion of executive authority, the growing influence of security institutions, and shifts in national political priorities.
From this perspective, Republican resistance to expanding presidential war powers is not driven solely by geopolitical concerns. Many are also worried about the domestic consequences of such a trajectory. Some conservatives believe that the deeper America becomes involved in foreign crises, the greater the concentration of power in Washington—a result that stands in direct contradiction to the original promises of the America First movement.
Here, the great contradiction of the Trump era becomes visible.
Trump rose to power by presenting himself as an opponent of two trends: endless wars and the increasing concentration of power in the nation’s capital. Yet today, some Republicans feel that both trends are reemerging. From their perspective, the issue is not simply that America may be entering another Middle Eastern crisis; it is that such a crisis could revive the very political and security structures that Trumpism was supposed to rebel against.
For this reason, recent disagreements should not be interpreted merely as a temporary dispute between the White House and Congress. What is unfolding today is a clash between two competing interpretations of “America First.”
In the first interpretation, presidential authority and greater freedom of action in foreign policy are considered necessary for safeguarding national security. In the second, fidelity to the movement’s founding principles requires avoiding a slide into new wars and subjecting presidential war powers to stricter oversight.
This divide is likely to deepen in the months ahead because Iran is not merely a regional crisis. It has become a mirror in which Republicans see their own past—the promises they made, the wars they criticized, and the movement that claimed it would redefine American foreign policy.
Perhaps the most important point is this: Today’s Republican rebellion against Trump does not necessarily stem from opposition to Trumpism itself. In many cases, it arises precisely because some Republicans believe Trumpism is drifting away from its own founding principles.
Ultimately, the current crisis is less about Iran than about identity.
It is about whether the America First movement remains the same movement that once promised to end endless wars, or whether it is gradually becoming a new version of the very foreign-policy establishment it once rose up against.
And perhaps that is why the most dangerous challenge facing Trump is not emerging in Tehran, but within the Republican Party itself—where some of his former allies are no longer certain that loyalty to Trump still means loyalty to the original ideals of Trumpism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Dangers of a War Without an Off-Ramp
Strategic signals from Tehran and realist warnings in Washington align on a disturbing conclusion: The present conflict may lack a credible pathway toward termination.
Mar 13, 2026
The recent escalation of hostilities involving United States and Israeli strikes on Iranian territory has raised urgent questions about where the conflict is headed. As military actions unfold and rhetoric intensifies, a sober assessment of the strategic structure of the conflict becomes increasingly necessary. Wars often generate powerful narratives shaped by domestic politics, alliance commitments, and wartime psychology. Yet beneath these narratives lie strategic realities that ultimately determine whether a conflict moves toward escalation, stalemate, or settlement.
Two recent interviews conducted by Norwegian political scientist Glenn Diesen offer a revealing window into these realities. In separate conversations, Diesen spoke with professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran. The two scholars speak from vastly different institutional and national contexts, yet their analyses converge on a troubling conclusion: The present conflict may lack a credible pathway toward termination.
From the perspective of realist international relations theory, Mearsheimer emphasizes a familiar strategic principle. Wars initiated without clearly defined political objectives often drift toward escalation and attrition. Military operations may achieve tactical success while simultaneously deepening the strategic trap in which policymakers find themselves. When leaders cannot articulate what political outcome would constitute victory—or how such an outcome might realistically be achieved—military escalation risks becoming an end in itself.
The dynamics described by Marandi from Tehran reinforce this concern from the opposite side of the conflict. His remarks suggest that Iranian policymakers increasingly interpret US actions not as limited or coercive strikes but as part of a broader effort to impose strategic defeat. When a state believes that external pressure is intended to undermine its economic survival or political system, the incentives for compromise diminish dramatically. Resistance and escalation become the rational response.
Wars rarely end well when they begin without a clear understanding of how they are supposed to end.
Under such conditions, both sides tend to view their own actions as defensive while interpreting the other side’s moves as steps toward existential pressure. This reciprocal perception forms what strategists sometimes describe as an escalation trap. Each escalation appears justified in the moment, yet each step simultaneously reduces the space for diplomatic resolution.
Recent commentary from Tehran reinforces these concerns about escalation dynamics. In a separate interview with Diesen, Marandi of the University of Tehran pointed to the strategic importance of Kharg Island, the hub through which the majority of Iran’s oil exports pass. Speculation in strategic circles about possible attempts to strike or seize the island illustrates how the conflict could quickly move beyond limited military operations toward attacks on critical economic infrastructure. Such a move, he suggested, would likely be interpreted in Tehran not as a tactical action but as an attempt to cripple the country’s economic lifeline, increasing the risk of wider regional retaliation and drawing additional states into the confrontation.
One particularly revealing example emerged in the discussion between Diesen and Marandi regarding the possibility—circulating in strategic commentary—of a US attempt to strike or seize Kharg Island. Located in the Persian Gulf, Kharg Island is the central hub for Iranian oil exports, reportedly handling roughly 80-90% of the country’s shipments. Because of its economic importance, targeting the island would represent a dramatic shift in the character of the conflict.
Military strikes against discrete installations can sometimes be framed as limited actions intended to degrade specific capabilities. Attacks on critical economic infrastructure are different. They signal an effort to impose systemic economic damage on the opposing state. From Tehran’s perspective, such an action would likely be interpreted not as a tactical move but as an attempt to cripple the Iranian economy itself.
Strategically, this kind of escalation rarely remains confined to its original target. Marandi noted that any attempt to seize or attack the island would likely require the use of airspace or facilities in neighboring Gulf states. That reality alone would expand the number of actors drawn directly into the conflict. Iran would almost certainly interpret such involvement as participation in the attack and respond accordingly.
The result could be a widening regional confrontation affecting maritime routes, energy infrastructure, and shipping lanes across the Persian Gulf. Given the centrality of the region to global oil markets, such developments would quickly carry worldwide economic consequences.
Yet even from a strictly military standpoint, Marandi argues that such escalation might prove strategically futile. Iran’s geographic proximity to the island and its coastal defense capabilities could complicate any attempt to seize or neutralize it. More broadly, attacks on economic lifelines rarely produce the decisive political outcomes their planners hope for. Instead, they tend to deepen the resolve of the targeted state while increasing the scale of retaliation.
This dynamic highlights a deeper structural problem in the current conflict: the absence of a clearly defined off-ramp. When wars begin without clear termination conditions, each new escalation step appears tactically rational while simultaneously making political settlement more difficult. Military actions generate retaliation; retaliation generates justification for further escalation; and over time the original political objectives become increasingly obscured.
History provides many examples of wars drifting into such patterns. Once conflict becomes self-sustaining, the political cost of de-escalation rises even as the strategic benefits of continued escalation diminish. Leaders fear appearing weak if they pursue negotiations, yet continuing the war often produces mounting risks without delivering a decisive outcome. These dynamics are precisely what realist analysts warn about when conflicts begin to expand without clearly defined political objectives or credible pathways toward de-escalation.
For the United States, these strategic concerns intersect with constitutional questions as well. Sustained hostilities raise fundamental issues regarding congressional authority over war powers and democratic accountability in decisions that may carry enormous human and geopolitical consequences. When a conflict expands without clear political objectives, the need for transparent debate about strategy and legal authority becomes all the more urgent.
The convergence between realist analysis in Washington and strategic signaling from Tehran therefore deserves careful attention. Despite their very different vantage points, both perspectives point toward the same underlying concern: The present conflict may be drifting toward a prolonged confrontation without clearly defined limits or exit mechanisms.
Recognizing that danger does not require accepting the strategic narratives of any particular side. It simply requires acknowledging a central lesson of international politics. Wars rarely end well when they begin without a clear understanding of how they are supposed to end.
If policymakers hope to avoid an open-ended escalation spiral, renewed emphasis on political strategy and diplomatic pathways will be essential. Without a credible off-ramp, even limited conflicts can evolve into prolonged confrontations whose costs far exceed their original causes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Refusing to Impeach Trump, Congress Has Failed the American People and the World
Where would we be if the opposition party had followed through on that vote in April? What if DOGE; illegal firings of federal workers; and wildly destabilizing, illegal tariffs had been enough for Congress to begin asserting their power?
Mar 04, 2026
Over a year into President Donald Trump’s second lawless, unconstitutional administration, Congress is only “considering” reasserting themselves as a co-equal branch of government. They have mounted no meaningful response to repeated usurpation of war powers and purse, ignoring continued obstructions of justice and violations of civil liberties. Congress has been so desperate to avoid imposing accountability on this administration that the mere idea of impeachment sent them into a “frenzied rage” throughout 2025.
This inaction bears rotten fruit again and again. The president’s unilateral declaration of war on Iran in February of 2026 can be traced directly to congressional inaction after Trump’s unilateral strikes on Iran in May of 2025. At that time, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) forced a vote on H.Res 537, impeaching Donald J. Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress voted to table the resolution. By refusing to impose consequences eight months ago, Congress has effectively green-lit this war, including the murder of more than 50 schoolgirls.
American voters across the nation and in swing districts have supported impeachment for nearly a year. Today mainstream grassroots groups like 50501 have joined the call for Congress to impeach Trump. Imagine if Congress was leading this effort instead of fighting it. What could we accomplish if we had our nominal leaders on our own side, rather than fighting against us at every step?
Today, individual representatives say they support impeachment, but they throw up road blocks: insisting it is a process (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)), that there should be an inquiry first (Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI)), that they need to have leadership’s buy-in (Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY)), or that they must wait for the midterms (Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)). These are all lies.
The American people like cowards even less than they like fascists. As a result, Democrats today are less popular than Donald Trump.
Impeachment is a privileged resolution, and that means any member can introduce articles of impeachment at any time through Rule IX and demand that the House address it within 48 hours. Congress is missing the will to act.
The first impeachment articles of Trump’s second term were filed in April of 2025 by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), after Citizens’ Impeachment (then Operation Anti-King) coordinated a grassroots campaign to push for impeachment. H.Res 353 incorporated Citizens’ Impeachment’s article on tyranny and was filed under Rule IX to force a vote. The backlash—from Democratic leadership and from his own party—was so intense that Thanedar withdrew the articles from the floor five minutes before the vote. The resolution has been with the Judiciary Committee, untouched, for the last 10 months.
Where would we be if the opposition party had followed through on that vote in April? What if DOGE; illegal firings of federal workers; and wildly destabilizing, illegal tariffs had been enough for Congress to begin asserting their power?
Rep. Thanedar has since learned to use the drafting of impeachment articles as a political tool instead of the desperately needed accountability that the nation requires. In December of 2025, Thanedar’s office asked Citizens’ Impeachment to endorse H.Res 935 impeaching Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for the murder of two shipwrecked survivors. Citizens’ Impeachment did so, with the caveat that simply drafting articles was not enough—the articles needed to be filed under Rule IX and brought to a vote as soon as possible. Rhetoric was escalating, military assets were being moved into position, and it was clear that military action was imminent.
Had Rep. Thanedar forced a vote then, when Hegseth’s murder of shipwrecked survivors was in the news and Congress had just reminded military members that they must refuse illegal orders, he would have brought consequences to bear on one of the least popular members of Trump’s cabinet, and possibly forestalled the Venezuela strikes. Instead, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth once again usurped congressional war powers without consequence. H.Res. 935 remains with the Judiciary Committee, irrelevant and ignored.
Similarly, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) spent months requesting an impeachment inquiry into Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s behavior before Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) decided to just write up the articles and make it happen. A full 187 members of Congress have now endorsed H.Res 996, an impeachment resolution for Noem. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) even claimed he would pursue impeachment if Noem wasn’t fired “immediately.” Without a vote though, even those actions are empty. Jeffries made that promise one month ago. Noem is still in office, H. Res 996 remains in committee, and Noem’s federal paramilitary forces continue their occupation of American cities unabated.
Articles of impeachment record the lawlessness of this administration, but they aren’t magical. The real power that every member of the House has is to force votes on those articles, putting their colleagues on record for their endorsement of the Trump administration’s repeated constitutional violations. And with the exception of Rep. Green, they absolutely refuse to use it.
In perhaps the most baffling abdication of both power and good sense, only two members of Congress have even considered impeachment for the Department of Justice's inept and corrupt handling of the Epstein Files. No articles have been written or filed though, despite the nearly unanimous vote to release the Epstein Files; the enormous, bipartisan outrage of the public at the Epstein Class; the blatant cover-up and obstruction of justice at the hands of Attorney General Pam Bondi; and pre-written articles of impeachment sent directly to Congress by thousands of constituents. Congress cannot seem to connect the dots to realize that not only would impeachment be good for the country, it would be overwhelmingly popular, even as midterms loom on the horizon.
The American people like cowards even less than they like fascists. As a result, Democrats today are less popular than Donald Trump.
What’s new here is that Congress already knows it can and should do more. As early as July 2025, one anonymous representative admitted it to NBC, saying of their constituents: “They aren’t buying that just because we are in the minority, we can’t do anything. The truth is we can. And we should.”
With the midterms coming up, voters have a chance to do something about this toxic dynamic. There are more than 100 pro-impeachment candidates on the ballot this election cycle, including prominent contenders like NJ-11 Analilia Mejia, former national political director for Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign and a member of former sPresident Joe Biden’s Department of Labor
The 435 members of the House are the only people with the power to begin impeachment proceedings. The 100 members of the Senate are the only people who can convict and remove Trump and his enablers from power. For a year, these powerful people have refused to take action. They have chosen to delay, and wait, and defer, allowing ever more harm to come to America and its people. In 2026 we should replace them all—they do not have the courage to meet this desperate moment for the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Marches US Toward Iran War, Critics Ask: Where's the 'Pushback' From Dems and Media?
"It's astonishing that we're building up for a significant military clash, and Congress isn't involved, no real case is being made to the public, and the average American has no clue."
Feb 18, 2026
Amid reports that President Donald Trump is pushing the US toward a "massive" war in Iran, critics have found themselves shocked by the lack of "pushback" from top Democrats and mainstream media institutions.
Barak Ravid reported for Axios on Wednesday that, with a deal between the US and Iran appearing increasingly out of sight, "the Trump administration is closer to a major war in the Middle East than most Americans realize" and "It could begin very soon."
Sources told the outlet that "A US military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month's pinpoint operation in Venezuela."
"Such a war would have a dramatic influence on the entire region and major implications for the remaining three years of the Trump presidency," Ravid wrote.
However, with Congress on recess and the media largely distracted by a whirlwind of other issues, he noted, "there is little public debate about what could be the most consequential US military intervention in the Middle East in at least a decade."
As columnist Adam Johnson pointed out on social media, Trump's sabre-rattling toward Iran was underway well before Congress left town.
Despite this, Johnson said, the "two most powerful Democrats in the country," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), "have once again not leveled a single word of substantive pushback," as was the case when Trump conducted strikes against Iran over the summer.
He said the top Democrats have only acknowledged Trump's threats "when asked by reporters" and have made only "process criticisms" rather than criticizing the merits of the war itself.
Last month, as Trump threatened to carry out massive strikes in retaliation for Iran's brutalization of protesters, Schumer limited his criticism to the fact that Trump had not consulted Congress.
“It has to be debated by Congress. Something like that, the War Powers Act, the Constitution, requires a discussion in Congress. We’ve had no reach-out from the administration at this point,” he told reporters.
More recently, Jeffries—a member of Congress who is briefed on national security matters—was asked on CBS's Face the Nation what he knew about the war plans or what he would want to know.
He did not answer that question, but vaguely lamented that Trump "has been slow to provide information... to the Gang of Eight members of Congress" and "hasn't provided a significant amount of information to Congress in general."
"When it comes to sanctions, perma-war, and bombings, we do not have an opposition party," Johnson said. "We have sleepy AIPAC-funded hall monitors paid to get wedgies and vaguely object after the craters are smoking in the ground."
New York Times columnist David French agreed: "It's astonishing that we're building up for a significant military clash, and Congress isn't involved, no real case is being made to the public, and the average American has no clue. If this gets serious, it will be a shock for lots of people."
There is little hunger in the American public for a war with Iran. A YouGov survey from early February found that 48% said they strongly or somewhat opposed military action in Iran, compared with just 28% who supported it and 24% who weren't sure.
Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said in an interview with Democracy Now! on Wednesday that, despite the public's broadly anti-interventionist attitudes, "their voices are more or less not being heard in the mainstream media."
"We’re seeing exactly what we saw during the Iraq War, in which a large number of pro-intervention Iraqi voices were paraded through mainstream media in order to give the impression that not only is this something that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi society, but also that this is the morally right thing to do," Parsi said.
Drop Site News founder Ryan Grim said that when compared with the invasion of Iraq, which was built up over the course of more than a year through persistent propaganda to get the public on board, the Trump administration's effort to sell a war with Iran is laughable.
"We don’t even get the respect of being lied into war anymore," he said. "He’s just going to do it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Echoes of Obama Libya Strikes as Trump Argues Boat Bombings Are Immune From War Powers Law
"It is a power grab in the service of killing people outside the law based solely on the president's own say so," said one expert.
Nov 03, 2025
The Trump administration reportedly told members of Congress that the president's deadly, unauthorized airstrikes on vessels in international waters can continue indefinitely, deploying a rationale that the Obama administration applied to its 2011 bombing of Libya.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that "T. Elliot Gaiser, head of the Trump administration's Office of Legal Counsel, made his remarks to a small group of lawmakers this week amid signs that the president may be planning to escalate the military campaign in the region, including potentially hitting targets within Venezuela."
Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the president has 60 days to terminate military operations not approved by Congress. The 60-day clock starts when the president notifies Congress of military action.
Monday marks the 60th day since Trump informed Congress of his first strike on a boat in the Caribbean in early September. The strike killed 11 people whom the administration accused without evidence of trying to smuggle drugs from Venezuela to the United States.
Trump has since authorized more than a dozen other strikes on boats in international waters, killing more than 60 people in what human rights organizations and United Nations experts have described as blatant violations of US and international law.
The Trump administration has told lawmakers that the US is engaged in "armed conflict" against drug cartels that the president has designated as "terrorist organizations."
But the White House is insisting that Trump's military actions in international waters are not constrained by the War Powers Resolution, claiming the operations "do not rise to the level of 'hostilities'" because the administration says American troops are not likely to be put in danger.
Brian Finucane, a former legal adviser at the State Department who now works at the International Crisis Group, observed Monday that the Trump administration's narrow definition of hostilities echoes "arguments made by the Obama administration in 2011 with respect to the military intervention in Libya."
"The Obama administration's interpretation of 'hostilities' was not well received, including by the US Congress," Finucane wrote, pointing to a May 18, 2011 letter that Republican senators sent to Obama accusing him of flouting the War Powers Resolution.
One of those GOP senators—Rand Paul of Kentucky—is backing a bipartisan war powers effort to prevent Trump from unilaterally and unlawfully attacking Venezuela.
Finucane stressed that the implications of the Trump administration's decision to interpret hostilities narrowly "are significant," noting that it paves the way for the US government to "continue its killing spree at sea, notwithstanding the time limits imposed by the War Powers Resolution."
"Second, the executive is arrogating to itself greater power over the use of force that constitutionally is the prerogative of Congress," Finucane added. "It is a power grab in the service of killing people outside the law based solely on the president's own say so."
On Saturday, Drop Site reported that the Trump administration has expanded its "drug cartel target list" to include sites inside Colombia and Mexico amid concerns that the president could soon attack Venezuela and launch an effort to overthrow the nation's president, Nicolás Maduro.
"At an Oval Office meeting in early October, Trump administration officials and top generals discussed escalating the pressure on Venezuela to go beyond the semi-regular attacks on boats in the Caribbean," the outlet reported. "The discussed plans include striking on land inside Venezuela... The same October 2 meeting included a previously reported directive from President Trump, who dialed his special envoy Richard Grenell into the call, telling him to cut off diplomatic communications with Maduro."
Asked during a newly aired "60 Minutes" interview if he believes Maduro's days as Venezuela's president are "numbered," Trump responded, "I would say yeah."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Spinelessness of Thune and Johnson Is Destroying American Democracy
GOP leaders in Congress are assaulting the Constitution by dismantling the separation of powers in favor of limitless presidential authority indistinguishable from monarchy or a dictatorship of Der Fuhrer.
Oct 31, 2025
Dear Majority Leader Thune and House Speaker Johnson:
Under your leaderships, the wholesale surrender of constitutional powers of Congress to the White House has been appalling. You both took oaths to defend and preserve the Constitution under Article VI. In violation of your oaths, you are destroying the Constitution by dismantling the separation of powers—a structural bill of rights to arrest executive tyranny—in favor of limitless presidential authority indistinguishable from monarchy or Der Fuhrer.
You cannot claim ignorance. Among other assertions and actions, President Donald Trump proclaimed on July 23, 2019, “Then I have Article 2, where I have the right to do anything I want as president.” If there were any doubt about Mr. Trump’s belief in lawless presidential omnipotence, it should have been dispelled by Mr. Trump’s skepticism about honoring his oath of office on May 4, 2025. During an interview with NBC News’ Kristen Welker, Trump was questioned about a potential mass deportation program. When Welker asked, “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” Trump responded, “I don’t know.”
Would you have acted as Mr. Trump has as president of the United States? Can you accept behavior that you would not tolerate if you occupied the White House?
On your watch, Congress has surrendered the war powers to Mr. Trump. It has surrendered the power of the purse to Mr. Trump. It has surrendered the treaty power to Mr. Trump. It has surrendered the oversight and confirmation powers to Mr. Trump. It has surrendered the power to legislate to Mr. Trump, including limitless discretion to jettison his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed instead of being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Mr. Trump’s refusals to enforce the congressional ban on TikTok, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the federal prohibition on extortion, the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Hatch Act, or the Leahy Amendments are some examples of his serial violations of law. Indeed, Mr. Trump has turned the United States into a police state in which any criticism of his stewardship of our liberties is treated and prosecuted as a felony.
You both have idled as Mr. Trump has flouted the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, putting the White House up for auction and lately, unlawfully paying for a giant ballroom with private contributions. You both have acquiesced while Mr. Trump has daily flouted the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and association, pressing to make American journalists echo chambers of his administration in the manner of Russian President Vladimir Putin and RT and Radio Sputnik.
Would you have acted as Mr. Trump has as president of the United States? Can you accept behavior that you would not tolerate if you occupied the White House?
You have turned Congress into a laughingstock as the Invertebrate Branch. We have no confidence that you will respond to our constitutional peril by impeaching and removing President Trump from office. Your entire careers betray the treacherous earmarks of the “summer soldier and sunshine patriot” as historians will highlight.
On July 4, 1776, nearly 250 years ago, the 56 signatories to the Declaration of Independence signed their death warrants to secure unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under attack by King George III and his powerful military forces. President Trump has bested the King’s tyranny. He is exercising the power to assassinate any person or organization on the planet as a putative enemy of the United States. Trump’s assassinations may have started with suspected drug traffickers. His dress rehearsal was assisting Israeli assassinations throughout the Middle East. Mr. Trump has articulated no limiting principle that would preclude assassinating political opponents, active or retired, including Members of Congress. “Immunity, immunity, immunity,” in the words of Justice Sonya Sotomayor dissenting in Trump v. United States (July 1, 2024). The only uncertainty is where Members stand in the queue, unlessimpeachment is forthcoming by Congress without tarry.
The lament of Pastor Martin Niemöller, inaudible during the rise of Hitler, should awaken you from your cowardly complacencies:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Sincerely,
Bruce Fein
Ralph Nader
Lou Fisher
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s National Security Agenda Puts 'We the People' in Its Crosshairs
From Venezuela to Chicago, Trump’s seizure of military powers puts us all at risk.
Oct 18, 2025
As the Trump administration edges closer to a full-scale, unauthorized war on Venezuela, and amidst reports that President Donald Trump may invoke the Insurrection Act to wield the military against the American people, we must assert limits to Trump’s war powers.
On October 8, 2025, the Senate nearly passed a resolution to block the US from blowing up more boats in the Caribbean. The War Powers resolution, led by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), failed by just three votes and follows revelations that the Trump administration secretly authorized covert CIA action in Venezuela. The administration still has not provided its legal justification or evidence supporting its repeated unlawful strikes on boats, which have killed at least 27 people so far. These startling developments are just the tip of the iceberg of Trump’s illegal abuses of wartime powers to enact his draconian agenda—in the process putting we, the people, in its crosshairs.
It’s almost impossible to list all of the ways in which the Trump administration has invoked “national security” as a means to achieve unilateral power and crush dissent. But there are a few standouts. In March this year, the Trump administration invoked an 18th-century wartime act in peacetime, targeting Venezuelan community members and disappearing them to a torture prison in El Salvador. It then defied court orders attempting to curb its unlawful actions. Simultaneously, the administration asserted that the wartime act allows it to search homes without a warrant and that it can deploy the military against certain civilians–we now know it’s delivered on the latter promise.
Meanwhile, Trump adviser Stephen Miller has said he wants to suspend habeas corpus—the right to challenge unlawful imprisonment—for all immigrants. Guantánamo Bay is warehousing immigrants as Trump attempts to expand a “global gulag” for mass deportations. The federal government has also exploited laws rooted in anti-Palestinian racism to designate Latin American and Haitian cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and wants to lock up anyone opposed to the Trump agenda as “domestic terrorists”—all of this so the administration can silence, strip rights from, and wield its massive police powers against whatever community it sees fit.
Most people view the Japanese internment and racist post-9/11 policing of Muslim communities as stains on our country’s history. The Trump administration’s latest racist power grabs are no different, and are already harming communities across the country.
This isn’t as unprecedented as it may feel, though the sheer magnitude is alarming. Racist laws and policies in the US have long drawn lines to dictate who has rights and who does not. Eighty years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt invoked the 1798 wartime act during World War II to enable the government to detain and expel people of Japanese, German, and Italian descent. Over 31,000 people were rounded up based on nationality and imprisoned in concentration camps, separating thousands of families. Raids, kidnapping, and incarceration of Japanese Americans soon followed–all justified in the name of national security.
Six decades later, the Bush administration used national security as cover for racist executive power grabs which defined the post-9/11 era. Congress passed laws and allocated billions to expand a national security apparatus that criminalized Muslim identity and political and religious expression. The Bush administration even attempted to suspend habeas corpus until the Supreme Court intervened.
Most people view the Japanese internment and racist post-9/11 policing of Muslim communities as stains on our country’s history. The Trump administration’s latest racist power grabs are no different, and are already harming communities across the country.
The administration has claimed power to deny fundamental rights to any community it decides is a threat—whether abroad, or at home. Already, residents of multiple cities are dealing with active military on their street corners. Adults and children are being snatched off the street in broad daylight, from the kidnappings of Mahmoud Khalil and Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to the disappearances of a dozen people to South Sudan, to the attempted abduction of hundreds of Guatemalan children. Last month, the Supreme Court caved to the administration and green-lit racial profiling against Latinos by masked, violent, and sometimes deadly federal officers. People in towns and neighborhoods across the country are terrified to take their kids to school, travel to work, or sleep in their own apartments, all because the administration is misusing war powers to surveil, detain, and disappear anyone it wants, foreign or domestic.
Congress must exercise its power to rein in this unchecked executive. The Senate is poised to bring a new, bipartisan War Powers resolution, offering senators another, critical chance to block the administration's unlawful military strikes on civilians. The House should likewise move Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) or Rep. Jason Crow's (D-Colo.) similar War Powers resolution. Congress must also demand answers from the administration on its deadly, illegal attacks; stop funding its raids, deportation, and disappearance machines; and restore fundamental rights by passing laws like the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, which diminishes the executive’s power to mass deport or surveil.
Increased military force, whether in the Caribbean or in Chicago, are interlocking pieces in a horrifying puzzle of presidential overreach. A runaway executive, emboldened by the courts, is subjecting communities of color—and anyone it labels a threat—to a different set of rules. We’ve seen this play out before, and we know what’s at stake for ourselves and our neighbors. We must speak out, resist, and demand our elected officials refuse to fund or sanction the Trump administration’s naked power grabs before it’s too late.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Demand Trump Provide Legal Justification for Extrajudicial Murder of Alleged Drug Runners
"Congress has the sole constitutional responsibility to declare war and to authorize the use of force," notes a joint letter to the president. "You have failed to secure such authorization for these strikes."
Oct 08, 2025
Top Democratic members of key committees in the US House are demanding President Donald Trump come clean on the legal justification for extrajudicial bombings of alleged drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea over recent weeks, attacks which international law experts have called "patently illegal" and "murder" by executive fiat.
In addition to providing any legal justification for the lethal attacks, which have reportedly killed 21 individuals, a letter signed by five Democratic lawmakers demands to know which so-called "drug trafficking organizations" have been identified explicitly by the Trump administration for these targeted executions on the high seas.
"Congress has the sole constitutional responsibility to declare war and to authorize the use of force. You have failed to secure such authorization for these strikes," the letter states. "Further, the Administration’s severe lack of transparency and failure to share critical information with Congress prevents Congress from conducting constitutionally ordained oversight of the Executive Branch."
The one-page letter sent to the White House Tuesday was signed by Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary; Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee; Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
The letter to Trump states:
Per your Administration’s sparse reporting to Congress, you have determined that certain cartels are “non-state armed groups,” that you have “designated them as terrorist organizations,” and that you have “determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.”
However, your Administration has not identified any of the specific organizations you have determined to be included as designated terrorist organizations, nor the criteria or process used for making such determinations. You have also failed to specify the authority under which the Administration is able to designate affiliates of certain drug trafficking organizations as enemy combatants for the purpose of undertaking lethal strikes. We request that you immediately provide a list of all designated terrorist organizations to Congress, along with the associated determination criteria or methodologies used. In addition, you have not provided Congress with details regarding the intelligence associated with these strikes.
During a hearing before the US Senate on Tuesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to answer questions about any legal guidance the Trump White House may have received from the DOJ about the bombings.
"I'm not going to discuss any legal advice that my department may or may not have given or issued at the direction of the president on this matter," Bondi told Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who sits on both the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees.
Trump openly confessed to the terrorizing effects the US bombings are having in Venezuela by saying that local civilians have now abandoned the maritime region where the bombings have occurred.
“We’re so good at it that there are no boats—in fact, even fishing boats,” Trump said last week during a speech to military leaders at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia. “Nobody wants to go into the water anymore.”
The letter from the five House lawmakers argues that the Trump administration "has not provided significant details with respect to the legal justification for these strikes beyond vague assertions of Article II powers."
While the lawmakers acknowledge that a president's authorities under Article II are significant, "they are not limitless."
"It is our understanding that the Department of Defense has determined strikes against designated terrorist organizations are legal on the basis of a legal opinion produced by the Department of Justice," the letter states. "We ask that you provide that legal opinion to Congress immediately."
Legal scholars have said there should be grave concern about the nature of the extrajudicial attacks, the latest of which occurred last week, killing a reported four people on board.
"The strike was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics—headed to America to poison our people," Hegseth claimed in a social media post on Oct. 3. Hegseth's pronouncement included no evidence whatsoever to back up his claim, but did include an unclassified video that captured the moment the vessel was struck:
Earlier this morning, on President Trump's orders, I directed a lethal, kinetic strike on a narco-trafficking vessel affiliated with Designated Terrorist Organizations in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility. Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the… pic.twitter.com/QpNPljFcGn
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) October 3, 2025
Hegseth vowed such US bombings "will continue until the attacks on the American people are over," but again offered no clear legal argument for how boats traveling on the open sea constitute an attack on Americans living thousands of miles away.
As Matthew C. Waxman, an adjunct senior fellow for law and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on Tuesday, the attacks "could mark a major shift in US counternarcotics policy and raise legal and diplomatic questions by blurring the lines between law enforcement, interdiction, and war."
Amnesty International USA, in its assessment of the latest bombing on Oct. 3, expressed a significantly higher degree of alarm. "This is murder," the group declared. "The US government must be held accountable."
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