5
#000000
#FFFFFF
War & Peace
Trump Delays Threatened 'Energy Plant Destruction' in Iran Until April 6
The US president faces pressure to fully retract his "deeply irresponsible threats of acts that would unleash catastrophic harm on millions of civilians."
Mar 26, 2026
President Donald Trump on Thursday further delayed any potential US strikes on Iranian power plants to April 6, after nearly a week of critics calling him a "maniacal tyrant" for threatening to commit even more war crimes while attacking Iran with Israel.
"As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement serve to represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time. Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
Trump initially said on the platform last Saturday night that "if Iran doesn't FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!"
Jan Vande Putte, a senior nuclear and radiation protection expert with Greenpeace International, said in a Monday statement that "bombing civilian electricity infrastructure is illegal under international law. The electricity grid is essential for hospitals, clean water, desalination, and the operation of nuclear facilities. Cutting it off puts millions of lives at risk."
"A blackout could force the Bushehr nuclear facility into depending completely on backup diesel generators, causing a heightened risk of overheating, which can lead to a Fukushima-like disaster," Vande Putte warned, pointing to the 2011 accident in Japan. "If Trump carries through with this reckless threat to knock out critical infrastructure, it could lead to cascading failures, from blackouts to nuclear danger far beyond national borders, with the potential to escalate into a wider regional crisis."
Amid mounting outrage on Monday, Trump instructed the Pentagon to "postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions."
Critics continued to sound the alarm. In a Tuesday statement, Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International's senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, called on Trump to retract his "dangerous" and "deeply irresponsible threats of acts that would unleash catastrophic harm on millions of civilians."
"By threatening such strikes, the USA is effectively indicating its willingness to plunge an entire country into darkness, and to potentially deprive its people of their human rights to life, water, food, healthcare, and adequate standard of living, and to subject them to severe pain and suffering," she warned.
"The decision to not proceed with such attacks must be based on the USA’s obligations under international humanitarian law to avoid civilian harm—not the outcome of political negotiations," the campaigner argued. "Going through with such attacks would cause devastating long-term consequences and severely undermine the international legal framework designed to protect civilians in wartime."
Guevara-Rosas also called on Iran to retract its threats to retaliate by striking power plants used by the US and Israel in Gulf states, as well as end all unlawful attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and against energy infrastructure and desalination facilities in the region.
"Intentionally attacking civilian infrastructure such as power plants is generally prohibited," she stressed. "Even in the limited cases that they qualify as military targets, a party still cannot attack power plants if this may cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Given that such power plants are essential for meeting the basic needs and livelihoods of tens of millions of civilians, attacking them would be disproportionate and thus unlawful under international humanitarian law, and could amount to a war crime."
As for the Trump administration's negotiations with Iran, the president's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, confirmed Thursday that Pakistani mediators sent the United States' 15-point framework to the Iranian government—which has not fallen over nearly a month of war, despite frequent assassinations.
Citing an Iranian senior political-security official, state-run Press TV reported Wednesday that Iran had rejected Trump's 15-point plan and had a list of five conditions for ending the conflict: a halt to assassinations, concrete mechanisms to ensure that the war is not reimposed, reparations for damages, an end to the war across all fronts and for all resistance groups involved throughout the region, and recognition of Iran sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
As The Associated Press reported Thursday:
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview on state TV that his government has not engaged in talks to end the war and does not plan to. He said the US had tried to send messages to Iran through other nations, "but that is not a conversation nor a negotiation."
Egypt is also acting as a go-between, according to Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, who said Thursday that his country sees a desire from both sides "for calm, for the exploration of negotiations."
Throughout the week, fears of Trump pursuing a ground invasion of Iran have also mounted, intenstifying pressure on congressional Democrats to force another vote on a war powers resolution intended to end the president's unauthorized Operation Epic Fury before the upcoming two-week recess.
"This may be the last opportunity for Congress to slam on the brakes before Trump launches a disastrous ground invasion of Iran," Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said on social media Thursday evening. "If Democratic leadership fails to force a vote and leaves town for two weeks, they will be complicit in any catastrophic escalation."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Jayapal-Meeks Bill Would Block Trump From Using Federal Funds for Military Attack on Cuba
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "We must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
Mar 26, 2026
Amid calls for Congress to "do something—before it is too late," a pair of US House Democrats on Thursday introduced the Prevent an Unconstitutional War in Cuba Act to block President Donald Trump from using any federal funds to take military action against the island nation without congressional authorization.
The proposal from Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, comes after Trump ramped up the United States' decades-long economic blockade, cutting off Cuba from Venezuelan oil. The fuel shortage has led to island-wide blackouts, and disrupted everything from healthcare to transportation. As Jayapal put it earlier this month, the "cruel and failing policy... has caused incredible harm to the Cuban people."
Trump has also repeatedly threatened a US takeover of Cuba. His other misadventures abroad—such as joining Israel in waging war on Iran without authorization from Congress, bombing boats allegedly being used to smuggle drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, and abducting President Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela in an operation that killed dozens of Venezuelans and Cubans—have fueled fears that he may act on those threats, as Jayapal signaled in a Thursday statement.
“Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba. These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want," she said. "Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied. Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
The bill's prohibition on funding military action against Cuba does not apply to any use of force that is consistent with the section of the War Powers Act that empowers the president to respond to a "national emergency" created by an attack on the United States or its armed forces. In January, Trump notably signed an executive order declaring a national emergency with respect to Cuba and authorized new tariffs on imports from countries that supply oil to the island.
As with Iran pre-war, the Trump administration is currently engaged in negotiations with the Cuban government. Those talks are being led by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a son of Cuban immigrants and longtime supporter of regime change in the country, who said earlier this month that "the embargo is tied to political change on the island... They're in a lot of trouble, and the people in charge, they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge."
Predictions over whether Trump will actually bomb or invade Cuba, which is located just 90 miles south of Florida, remain mixed.
"I think once Donald Trump gets an economic agreement that opens the island to US business, he will have fulfilled his transactional aims in Cuba. I don't think he cares about political transition. He doesn't seem to care about it in Venezuela," American University professor and Back Channel to Cuba coauthor William LeoGrande told USA Today this week. "And so, I think once there's an economic agreement that's to the advantage of the United States and US businesses, the president will move on to the next thing."
Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan Robinson, who's reported on the Nuestra América Convoy from Havana this week, declared on Wednesday that "they WILL run the Venezuela playbook on Cuba."
"They want a Republican donor imperial viceroy who will privatize the Cuban healthcare and school systems, and hand all the waterfront property to developers, with the Cuban people serving as cheap labor building a playground for Miami's rich," said Robinson.
Meeks—who is facing pressure to force a vote on his Iran war powers resolution—said Thursday that "Cuba is not for Donald Trump to take, and today we stand firm against the illegal use of the US military to pursue turning Cuba into another playground for Trump's chaotic adventurism."
"Such a reckless course would risk American lives, cost taxpayers billions, and, in all likelihood, leave the underlying political and economic conditions unchanged," he said. "The United States cannot bomb Cuba out of economic collapse or political repression—lasting change must come through empowering the Cuban people, not doubling down on a failed approach that disproportionately harms them."
The new bill is backed by Democratic Reps. Gabe Amo (RI), Joaquin Castro (Texas), Sara Jacobs (Calif.), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Melanie Stansbury (NM), Dina Titus (Nev.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Nydia Velázquez (NY). However, like legislation aimed at stopping Trump's boat strikes, aggression toward Venezuela, and war on Iran, it is unlikely to be passed by the GOP-controlled Congress.
Still, earlier this week, Velázquez also introduced a war powers resolution to prevent US involvement in military hostilities against the island. She said in a statement that "Donald Trump's belligerent foreign policy is creating new wars and conflicts across the world."
"This administration's foreign policy is totally out of control and is putting countless American and foreign lives at risk," Velázquez warned. "Trump's military blockade, his threats, and his track record this term show that Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and stop another disastrous war before it's too late."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Fears of Imminent Ground Invasion Surge as Trump Weighs ‘Final Blow’ Options Against Iran
"Looking to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a similar invasion of Iran, given its population size, would require as many as 1.6 million troops," warned one analyst.
Mar 26, 2026
The Trump administration is reportedly considering several options for a massive escalation of its unlawful war on Iran, heightening fears that US troops—possibly as early as Friday or the weekend—could be hurled into a deadly quagmire with no clear objective, legal rationale, or exit strategy.
Axios reported that among the options the Pentagon is considering are "invading or blockading" Kharg Island—Iran's primary oil export hub—and sending American forces "deep inside the interior of Iran" in an effort to seize the country's enriched uranium. The reporting indicates that the administration views the options as a "final blow" against Iran, despite US President Donald Trump's public claim that the war has already been won decisively.
The new reporting marked just the latest signal that the Trump administration could be readying a ground invasion, which—like the ongoing bombing campaign across Iran—has not been approved by the US Congress and would be deeply unpopular with the American public. The US and Iran have both put forth demands for a diplomatic resolution, but Iranian officials have said there are no active negotiations with the Trump administration, contrary to the president's claim earlier this week.
Brandan Buck, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who has criticized the war from the start, warned in a recent blog post that "any serious American invasion of Iran would likely rival or exceed the scale of Vietnam or the 1991 Gulf War, making it the largest US military undertaking since the Second World War."
"Looking to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a similar invasion of Iran, given its population size, would require as many as 1.6 million troops," Buck noted. "Trump’s ill-considered decision to launch the war, coupled with his vague-but-ambitious goals, has made this impossible scenario a military possibility. Given the horrific costs such an invasion would entail, however, Trump should choose a different path: declare 'victory' and de-escalate."
Fears of an imminent ground invasion have spread to Republicans who were otherwise supportive of the Trump administration's decision to attack Iran. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who earlier this month voted against a resolution that aimed to stop the war, wrote on social media Wednesday afternoon that she "will not support troops on the ground in Iran."
Mace's post came shortly after she left a closed-door House Armed Services Committee briefing on Iran. The Republican lawmaker said she was "even more" opposed to a ground invasion following Wednesday's briefing.
"The justifications presented to the American public for the war in Iran were not the same military objectives we were briefed on today in the House Armed Services Committee," Mace wrote in a separate post on Wednesday. "This gap is deeply troubling. The longer this war continues, the faster it will lose the support of Congress and the American people."
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who celebrated the US-Israeli bombing of Iran when it kicked off last month, told reporters following Wednesday's briefing—nearly a month into the war—that "we want to know more about what’s going on, what the options are, and why they’re being considered."
"Trump has a well-documented pattern of escalating on Friday night, after the markets close."
House Democratic leaders, meanwhile, faced backlash for reportedly deciding to punt a vote on an Iran war powers resolution until at least mid-April, even amid mounting evidence that the Trump administration is barreling headlong toward an illegal and potentially catastrophic ground assault.
"Congress is in session until Friday, after which they will go on a two-week recess," noted Nathan Thompson, senior policy adviser at Just Foreign Policy. "Trump has a well-documented pattern of escalating on Friday night, after the markets close. If House Democrats and [the House Foreign Affairs Committee] wait until after the recess, the damage could be done."
The Pentagon earlier this week ordered roughly 2,000 soldiers from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division to head to the Middle East. According to the US Central Command, more than 50,000 American troops are currently involved in the war on Iran.
During a briefing on Wednesday, a reporter noted to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that the 82nd Airborne Division is "typically deployed at the beginning of conflicts."
"Does the White House consider this conflict as wrapping up, or is it changing shape?" the reporter asked.
Leavitt responded that "the president likes to maintain options at his disposal."
Drop Site's Ryan Grim, citing an unnamed source, reported Thursday that "Naval Special Warfare teams were also given deployment orders yesterday, as well as a bunch of Tier 1 operators."
Taken together, Grim argued, recent developments suggest that "all the pieces are in place for a ground operation within a day."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'A Lot of Words for Murder': US Military Says It Killed 4 in 'Lethal Kinetic Strike' in Caribbean
The latest strike brought the total death toll from the Trump administration's illegal boat bombing spree to at least 163.
Mar 26, 2026
The US military said Wednesday that it killed four people in its latest attack on a vessel accused—without evidence—of smuggling drugs through routes in the Caribbean, bringing the total death toll from the Trump administration's illegal boat bombing spree to at least 163.
The US Southern Command said in a statement posted to social media that as part of an effort to apply "total systemic friction on the cartels," it "conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations." Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote in response, "That's a lot of words for murder."
Human rights organizations, UN experts, and legal scholars have condemned the US boat bombings, which began last September, as flagrant violations of international law. Earlier this month, following a previous US attack on a vessel in the eastern Pacific, Amnesty International reiterated its position that the strikes "constitute extrajudicial killings, a form of murder."
The boat bombings have continued apace even as they've faded from the headlines amid the Trump administration's illegal war on Iran. The US has carried out nearly 50 separate strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific over the past six months.
As with the war on Iran, which lawmakers did not authorize, Republicans in the US Congress have blocked resolutions aimed at preventing American forces from carrying out additional strikes on vessels in international waters.
Wednesday's bombing came a day after a New York Times investigation found that a strike carried out as part of a joint operation by the US and Ecuadorian militaries "appears to have destroyed a cattle and dairy farm, not a drug trafficking compound," as the Trump administration claimed.
"We are bombing Narco Terrorists on land as well," Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted earlier this month.
US Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said in response to the Times reporting that "this is deeply abhorrent, and raises questions about the intelligence used to justify the administration's boat strikes in the Caribbean."
"Many of us have warned it is likely innocent people are being killed based on dubious evidence," Beyer added. "Those concerns now appear to be justified."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular