Week in Review | Attack Iran? No!

Authoritarianism is putting everything we value in danger The future of all that we cherish is on the line and we—all of us—have to fight like hell to protect democracy, human decency, and a livable planet. Our reporters are working overtime to cover the onslaught of horrors as well as the resistance movements rising up to fight back. We must be prepared to do battle over the long haul. Will you donate to our Mid-Year Campaign to keep the progressive, nonprofit journalism of Common Dreams alive? SUPPORT OUR JOURNALISM Sunday, June 22, 2025 ■ The Week in Review Anti-War Advocates Demand Trump 'Return to Diplomatic Path' After Illegal Strikes on Iran "President Trump has attacked Iran based on the same type of false information put forward by those who consistently seek to drag our nation into unnecessary and catastrophic wars," said one critic. By Julia Conley • Jun 22, 2025  Anti-nuclear groups and progressives in U.S. Congress were among those condemning President Donald Trump's bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran, which were launched Sunday morning local time and came despite widespread disapproval in the U.S. of the country becoming involved in Israel's recent attacks on the Middle Eastern country. Trump announced Saturday night in Washington, D.C. that six B-2 bombers had dropped 12 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on Fordo, Iran's most protected underground uranium enrichment site. Other targets included a plant at Natanz and one near Isfahan. Iran has repeatedly said its nuclear program is used for peaceful civilian purposes, and U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that the country has not begun making a nuclear bomb with its enriched uranium. On Sunday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dodged a question at a press briefing about whether new intelligence showed that Iran had decided to build a nuclear weapon. Iranian officials were involved in negotiations with the U.S. when Israel began attacking sites across Iran earlier this month, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu making his latest claim that the Iranians "could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time" if nuclear targets were not obliterated. The Iranian news agency Tasnim reported that "several people" were injured in the attack on Fordo. Trump said in recent days that he had not decided whether the U.S. would get directly involved in Israel's war, but flight tracking data showing B-2 bombers crossing the Pacific Ocean on Saturday provoked suspicions that a U.S. attack could be imminent. Melissa Parke, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said the Trump administration was "breaking international law" by entering Israel's assault on Iran. "Military action against Iran is not the way to resolve concerns over Tehran's nuclear program. Given that U.S. intelligence agencies assess Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, this is a senseless and reckless act that could undermine international efforts to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons," said Parke. "The U.S. should have continued to pursue the diplomatic process underway before Israel resorted to the illegal use of force. This does not make the region or the world safer... The U.S. must stop all military action and return to the diplomatic path." In the U.S. Democratic lawmakers condemned the attack as one that violated the Constitution, which requires congressional authorization for the use of military force—although both Democratic and Republican presidents have unilaterally approved attacks on foreign countries in recent decades. "President Trump sending U.S. troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of our Constitution," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). "The American people do not want another forever war. We have seen where decades of endless war in the Middle East gets us—all based on the lie of 'weapons of mass destruction.' We are not falling for it again... Congress must act immediately to exert its war powers and stop this unconstitutional act of war." Members of Congress have introduced three proposals, including two War Powers Resolutions, to stop the Trump administration from taking military action against Iran without congressional authorization. At least 59 Democrats and one Republican have signed on to the measures. Top Democratic leaders including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) were not among them as of Saturday, when Trump launched the attack, and both had defended Israel's bombardment of Iran. Schumer signed on as a co-sponsor of Sen. Tim Kaine's War Powers Resolution after the U.S. bombings were announced and urged an immediate vote on the resolution. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's "disastrous decision" to unilaterally bomb Iran was "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Sunday that Trump had "betrayed" the country with which his administration had recently been negotiating and had "deceived his own voters." Iran "reserves all options to defend its security interests and people," said Araghchi at a news conference in Istanbul. "My country has been under attack, under aggression, and we have to respond based on our legitimate right of self-defense." Before the U.S. attack, Iran had said it would attack U.S. bases in the Middle East if Trump joined Israel's war. Raed Jarrar, advocacy director for Democracy for the Arab World Now, said Trump's actions "will most likely lead to retaliation from Iran that puts American troops and citizens across the Middle East in harm's way" and called for the passage of a War Powers Resolution "to prohibit further U.S. military involvement, even in the event of retaliation." "We need deescalation, not more bombs," said Jarrar. Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Trump had "fallen into Israel's trap quite easily" as Netanyahu seeks "to make our nation even more complicit than it already is with its genocide in Gaza and its multiple attacks on nations in the region." "This attack, carried out under pressure from the out-of-control Israeli government, took place despite the longstanding conclusion by our nation's intelligence community that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons," said Awad. "Just as President [George W.] Bush started a disastrous war in Iraq pushed by war hawks, neoconservatives, and Israeli leaders like Netanyahu, President Trump has attacked Iran based on the same type of false information put forward by those who consistently seek to drag our nation into unnecessary and catastrophic wars." "We must not engage in any further action against Iran," added Awad, "and should end our government's support for a rogue nation that seeks to dominate the region through a seemingly unending campaign of death, starvation, ethnic cleansing, and destruction." Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said the attack was carried out "because Trump and other American leaders still haven't figured out how to tell Netanyahu, 'No.'" "If Netanyahu lit the negotiating table on fire, Trump just added kerosene to it. Diplomatic channels with Iran will be effectively ended," said Abdi. "Iran hawks have always been clear: They view the war that Israel started last week not as a one-off, but as a regular occurrence," he added. "They want to keep bombing Iran whenever and wherever they please. It does, indeed, look like it could be a new forever war that the American people don't want and Trump pledged he'd avoid... Trump let slip the dogs of war, and the way ahead seems more perilous than ever. At this dark hour, we must all work together to rebuild a path toward peace." The Arms Control Association warned that while Iran's nuclear sites sustained damage, "military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge" and would likely strengthen "Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities, possibly prompting it to consider withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and possibly proceeding to weaponization." "Though the prospect for negotiations on a longer term framework to contain Iran's sensitive nuclear activities have been damaged severely, this remains the best possible long-term path to prevent further nuclear weapons proliferation," said the organization. "Trump needs a plan for deescalation and engagement." 'The World Sees You, Netanyahu': Israel's Iran Strikes Seen as 'War of Distraction' Amid Gaza Genocide "This 'war' is an unprovoked, unilateral attack, a criminal act of aggression, and it is meant to distract the world from acting with regard to Israel's genocide," said one Israeli critic. By Julia Conley • Jun 21, 2025 As Israel warned of a "prolonged campaign" against Iran and launched a new round of airstrikes on a nuclear facility and missile sites Saturday, a number of critics accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of waging a "war of distraction" as his military continues its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. Iran's Health Ministry said Saturday that more than 400 Iranians—the majority of them civilians—have been killed as Israel has struck dozens of targets in recent days, provoking retaliatory missile strikes from Iran. At least 3,056 people have been wounded in Iran. In Israel, officials said at least 24 people had been killed. The deaths of civilians were made "even more horrible," said Israeli academic Ori Goldberg, by the fact that Israel began its attacks as "a diversion"—claiming the strikes were necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons even as the Middle Eastern country was negotiating with the U.S. regarding its nuclear program, which it has repeatedly said it uses for peaceful civilian purposes. "This 'war' is an unprovoked, unilateral attack, a criminal act of aggression, and it is meant to distract the world from acting with regard to Israel's genocide," said Goldberg. "That is how desperate Israel is." Israel claimed it killed three top commanders in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps on Saturday—deaths that were not immediately confirmed by Iran. U.S. President Donald Trump delayed announcing a decision earlier this week regarding whether the U.S. military would become directly involved in Israel's assault on Iran, but on Saturday flight tracking data showed that U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers were headed across the Pacific from the U.S.—days after more warplanes were shown to be flying towards Europe. The B-2 planes "could be equipped to carry the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs that Mr. Trump is considering deploying against Iran's underground nuclear facilities in Fordo," The New York Times reported Saturday. The Fordo facilities are some of Iran's largest and have not yet been targeted. Meanwhile, at least 11 more Palestinians were killed in the latest Israeli attacks at aid sites set up by a U.S.- and Israel-backed foundation in Gaza. They were among a total of 26 Palestinians who were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Saturday, Al Jazeerareported. Israel has continued to block humanitarian aid from entering Gaza except at distribution sites run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which is staffed by U.S. security contractors. Gaza's Health Ministry said more than 400 Palestinians have been killed by Israel at GHF sites since they opened in late May; more than 55,000 people have been killed by Israeli forces since the IDF began bombarding Gaza in October 2023 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel. The International Committee of the Red Cross said this week that the "vast majority" of people who it's treated at its field hospital since the GHF sites began operating have been wounded while trying to access aid. The BBC reported Saturday that "in almost all incidents," eyewitnesses have said the IDF opened fire; in some cases there have also been reports of "local armed gunmen" shooting at crowds of Palestinians. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Netanyahu may incorrectly "think no one will notice what he's doing in Gaza while he bombs Iran." On Thursday, journalist Samira Mohyeddin noted that Israel also bombed the Al-Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza, killing at least 13 people in makeshift tents. "While Israel continues to try and avert the world's eyes towards its war of distraction on Iran, its genocide pushes on with ferocity in Gaza," said Mohyeddin. Israeli academic Shaiel Ben-Ephraim pointed out that Netanyahu has previously sparked "new conflicts to shift the conversation"—attacking the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. "Each flare-up acts as a smokescreen, pulling eyes away from the suffering and devastation happening under his command," said Ben-Ephraim. "Now, Iran is his latest and most effective diversion. This isn't accidental. It's a calculated move to fracture international attention and ease the pressure on him." "Netanyahu doesn't just need to be voted out; he should be brought to The Hague to face justice for the death and destruction he's unleashed." Alarm as White House Says Trump Has Not Ruled Out Dropping Nuclear Weapon on Iran An expert at the Federation of American Scientists warned that "radioactive fallout would be intense" if the U.S. deployed a penetrator nuke. By Jake Johnson • Jun 20, 2025 The White House said Thursday that President Donald Trump has not ruled out dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran as he considers options for joining Israel's escalating and increasingly deadly war. An unnamed Trump administration official told Fox News senior White House correspondent Jaqui Heinrich that "none of the options are off the table," denying a Guardian report that said the president was "not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon" on Iran's heavily entrenched Fordow nuclear site. Trump's reported consideration of a nuclear option comes amid internal concerns that the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs the U.S. possesses within striking distance of Iran would be insufficient to destroy Fordow. The massive bombs have never been used in active combat. Trump is expected to decide whether to join nuclear-armed Israel's assault on Iran "within two weeks," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday, reading a message that she described as coming directly from the president. Trump denied a Wednesday Wall Street Journal story suggesting that he had already approved a plan to attack Iran. Use of a nuclear weapon against Iran in a purported effort to stop the country from developing a nuke of its own—despite U.S. intelligence indicating that Iran's leadership has not decided to pursue one—would be catastrophic, according to experts and opponents of American intervention in the conflict. Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, warned that "radioactive fallout would be intense" if the U.S. deployed a B61-11 penetrator nuke. Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute, echoed that concern: Eli Clifton, a senior adviser at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, expressed astonishment at the Trump White House's position. "The U.S. is considering using a nuclear weapon for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki because our client state murdered our Iranian negotiating partner and started a war?" Clifton asked. News that the White House has not ruled out a nuclear attack on Iran also drew the attention of Russia, which has the world's largest nuclear arsenal. "There have been a lot of speculations," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday. "This would be a catastrophic development, but there are so many speculations that in fact, it's impossible to comment on them." While the White House stressed that all options are on the table regarding military action in Iran, Leavitt said Thursday that Trump believes there is a "chance for substantial negotiations." Anti-war campaigners interpreted that message as evidence that the growing pressure campaign against a military attack is having an impact. "The anti-war movement is working," said the advocacy group Demand Progress. "There are Iran war powers votes coming up in Congress soon. Time to keep the pressure up. Use our tool at 1833STOPWAR (dot) com or call 1-833-STOP-WAR to connect with offices after entering your zip code." Leavitt on Thursday dodged a reporter's question on whether Trump would seek congressional approval for a U.S. strike on Iran. Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at the think tank Defense Priorities, said in a statement Thursday that "the notion that the United States can conduct a few airstrikes and declare victory is an illusion." "Any direct U.S. military strike on Iran is likely to mission creep into regime change or collapse or spiral into a long, protracted war," Kavanagh warned. "Israel's strikes on Iran may make U.S. diplomatic efforts more difficult, but there is still a chance at a deal—and plenty of time to pursue one through negotiations." Fury Grows Over Democratic Complacency in Face of Looming War of Choice in Iran "It's embarrassing that some problematic far-right figures are speaking out more forcefully against direct military action than the so-called leaders of the opposition," said the executive director of Our Revolution. By Brett Wilkins • Jun 19, 2025 With just a relative handful of Democratic lawmakers backing legislation that would compel President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for an attack on Iran and many more Democrats voicing support for Israel as it kills hundreds of Iranian civilians while continuing its annihilation of Gaza, progressives on Thursday implored voters to pressure their representatives to oppose yet another U.S. war of choice. While Trump has reportedly approved plans to join a war that fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says is meant to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons that every U.S. administration this century—including his own—says Tehran is not trying to build, Democratic pushback against possible war has largely been limited to three pieces of proposed legislation that would require lawmakers' approval for military action, as mandated by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, also known as the War Powers Act. "If your argument is that Trump is an authoritarian danger to democracy but sure, let's follow him into another war, you are a complete fraud." Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt) No War With Iran Act, which has just seven co-sponsors, would prohibit use of federal funds for an attack on Iran. A separate Senate bill introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) would also block Trump from waging war on Iran absent congressional approval, while a similar measure put forth in the House by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California has drawn the support of 15 Democratic colleagues. Meanwhile, under relentless pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—which spent over $100 million in the 2024 election cycle on largely successful efforts to oust progressive opponents of Israel's war on Gaza—dozens of congressional Democrats have voiced support for Israel's unprovoked and illegal attack on Iran, which has killed or wounded around 2,000 people and prompted Iranian retaliation that has left hundreds of Israelis dead or injured. On Wednesday, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution praising and expressing support for Israel's so-called "preemptive" war on Iran. Sherman's measure is backed by more than a dozen Republican lawmakers and a pair of Democrats, Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.). Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have both also publicly backed Israel. "This is now defining for the Democratic Party," Khanna asserted in the face of his party's ambivalence. "Are we going to criticize the offensive weapons for Netanyahu and the blank check? Are we going to stand up with clarity against the strikes on Iran? Are we going to actually be the party of peace, or are we going to be just another party of war?" Other Democrats, including but by no means limited to Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio)—who have collectively raked in more than $2.2 million in campaign cash from the pro-Israel lobby, according to Track AIPAC—have voiced support for attacking Iran. "The Democratic Party has an AIPAC problem," Our Revolution executive director Joseph Geevarghese told Common Dreams Thursday. "Too many of its leaders seem more afraid of crossing a powerful lobbying group than they are of dragging the U.S. into another costly regime change war." "It's embarrassing that some problematic far-right figures are speaking out more forcefully against direct military action than the so-called leaders of the opposition," he added. "Much like [former President] Joe Biden's indefensible handling of the genocide in Gaza, this is yet another example of Democrats squandering their credibility with young, progressive, and independent-leaning voters." RootsAction national director Norman Solomon—author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death—told Common Dreams Thursday that "current members of Congress, in effect, belong to a war party or a peace party—and it has nothing to do with whether they have a 'D' or an 'R' after their names." "Many Democrats in Congress—who were silent while Trump killed the Obama-era nuclear deal during his first term and then President Biden refused to revive it—are now trying to score partisan points against Trump without clearly and emphatically opposing any U.S. direct attack on Iran, let alone opposing Israel's immense war crime of launching an aggressive war on Iran," he added. Like Solomon, progressive economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs noted that "there are warmongers in both parties, and peacemakers in both parties." "An antiwar coalition is possible but needs to be bipartisan," he told Common Dreams. Some of the most vocal opponents of a U.S. attack on Iran—a country that hasn't started a war since the mid-19th century when it was the Persian Empire, but has endured U.S. regime change and destabilization efforts for 70 years—have been Iranian Americans. "There is deep frustration and disappointment across our community with the Democratic Party's overall reluctance to meet the moment with the urgency and moral clarity it demands," Isabella Javidan, communications manager at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), told Common Dreams Thursday. "While some lawmakers are thankfully backing War Powers Resolutions to prevent unauthorized U.S. military involvement, too many Democrats are either silent or hedging, despite an illegal and catastrophic assault that has already killed hundreds of civilians in Iran and dragged the U.S. to the brink of war," Javidan continued. "This isn't just about diplomacy or restraint, it's also about preventing history from repeating itself," Javidan added. "The U.S. has been here before, and we know what happens when political leaders fail to speak out against reckless, one-sided escalations. Many in our community are alarmed that, despite the human toll, there's an absence of strong Democratic leadership publicly opposing the warpath being laid out by Netanyahu and endorsed by some in Congress." Referring to the recent U.S. intelligence assessment which, like several before it, concluded that Iran is not seeking nukes, Branko Marcetic lamented in a Jacobin article published Wednesday that "pro-war officials, both Democrat and Republican, have simply decided to pretend this never happened." In a separate piece for Responsible Statecraft, Marcetic noted that even progressive Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon referenced "Iran's nuclear ambitions." Ironically, much of Trump's 2016 foreign policy platform involved excoriating the Bush administration's lies about Iraq's nonexistent quest for weapons of mass destruction. "Trump is now a fingernail's length away from doing exactly what he bashed Bush for doing in order to kickstart his political ascent," Marcetic wrote for Jacobin. Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former senior foreign policy adviser to Sanders, said on social media that "any Democrat who can't stand up and speak out now against the Trump-Netanyahu regime change war should not even consider running in 2028. You're not who this country needs." "Seriously," Duss continued, "if your argument is that Trump is an authoritarian danger to democracy but sure, let's follow him into another war, you are a complete fraud." "Any Democrat who can't stand up and speak out now against the Trump-Netanyahu regime change war should not even consider running in 2028." Duss quipped, "I'll be accepting apologies from everyone who insisted we needed to welcome Bill Kristol in our coalition," referring to the "never-Trump" neoconservative co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, who has been an Iran hawk for decades. There's a politically expedient motivator for eschewing war on Iran—it's unpopular among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. An Economist/YouGov poll published earlier this week found that 60% of all respondents oppose U.S. involvement in the war, while just 16% supported military action and 24% were unsure. A slim majority of 2024 Trump voters don't want war with Iran and slightly more Republican respondents than Democrats support U.S. negotiations with Iran. "What this all boils down to," said Solomon, "is the imperative for all of us to demand that the U.S. not engage in any military action against Iran and insist that Israel halt its war of aggression—and that the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran for a new nuclear deal be resumed and completed for an agreement." "As constituents, we need to let all elected officials know that pursuit of peace is essential—and anything less is an insane push toward nuclear annihilation," he added. Disclosure: The author of this article recently served as the co-chair of San Francisco Berniecrats, an Our Revolution affiliate. 'Netanyahu Was Wrong in 2002. He Is Wrong Now': Sanders Warns Against Following Israeli PM Into War "We must not get involved in Netanyahu's war against Iran," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. By Jake Johnson • Jun 19, 2025 U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday pointed to testimony that Benjamin Netanyahu delivered to Congress more than two decades ago to help make the case that the United States should not join the Israeli prime minister's ongoing military campaign in Iran. During a House hearing in 2002, Netanyahu—who was not then the prime minister of Israel—argued in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, predicting it would "have enormous positive reverberations on the region." Netanyahu also said confidently that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was "seeking" and "advancing toward the development of nuclear weapons"—a claim that the Israeli leader has made repeatedly, for decades, about Iran's government. Sanders (I-Vt.), who opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, said in a statement Thursday that Netanyahu "was wrong. Very wrong." "The war in Iraq resulted in 4,492 U.S. military deaths, over 32,000 wounded, and a cost of roughly three trillion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also died as a result of that tragic war," Sanders continued. "Netanyahu was wrong regarding the war in Iraq. He is wrong now. We must not get involved in Netanyahu's war against Iran." Sanders' statement comes as the Trump administration is seriously considering intervening in the war Israel started last week with a barrage of airstrikes in Iran, an assault that has since escalated and killed more than 600 people, including many civilians. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have justified the unlawful assault by claiming that Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon—a narrative that Israel's prime minister has peddled for decades, even as U.S. intelligence agencies and international inspectors say there's no evidence to support it. "Since 1992, when Netanyahu addressed Israel's Knesset as an MP, he has consistently claimed that Tehran is only years away from acquiring a nuclear bomb," Al Jazeera reported Wednesday. "'Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb,' he declared at the time. The prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism." "In 2009, a U.S. State Department cable released by WikiLeaks revealed him telling members of Congress that Iran was just one or two years away from nuclear capability," the outlet continued. "Three years later, at the United Nations General Assembly, Netanyahu famously brandished a cartoon drawing of a bomb to illustrate his claims that Iran was closer than ever to the nuclear threshold." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2012 in New York City. (Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images) Earlier this week, Trump publicly rejected U.S. intelligence assessments and echoed Netanyahu's baseless claim about Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, telling reporters, "I think they were very close to having one." Trump has reportedly approved plans for a U.S. attack on Iran but has so far held off on giving the final order, adding urgency to congressional efforts to avert a potentially catastrophic war. Sanders is leading a bill that would bar the president from using federal funds for an unauthorized attack on Iran. Trump Reportedly Greenlights Plan for US Attack on Iran Without Congressional Approval "Right now, the most effective thing you can do is flood Congress with calls to show that the American people don't want to go to war with Iran," said the advocacy group Demand Progress. By Jake Johnson • Jun 19, 2025 House Democrat Under Fire for 'Reckless and Repugnant' Resolution Backing War on Iran The pro-war resolution came as AIPAC and its allies ramped up a pressure campaign urging Democrats to support Israel's unlawful attacks. By Jake Johnson • Jun 18, 2025 Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman of California faced backlash Wednesday for leading a resolution expressing support for Israel's unprovoked and illegal assault on Iran, which risks plunging the region into a full-blown war as the Trump administration weighs military attacks of its own. Sherman introduced the resolution Tuesday alongside Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) and 14 cosponsors, including Democratic Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.). The resolution praises Israel's attacks on Iran, characterizing them as "preemptive and proportional strikes" that "advance the vital United States national security interest in a nuclear-free Iran." The measure also "mourns the 24 Israelis killed and 590 Israelis wounded" by Iran's retaliatory attacks, but does not mention the more than 580 Iranians killed during the first five days of Israel's assault. In a scathing statement released Wednesday, National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Action condemned the Sherman-Tenney resolution as "absolutely reckless and repugnant" and argued that "no congressperson should be supportive of this one-sided resolution that provides U.S. endorsement of a destructive war of aggression that has undermined American interests, including U.S. diplomatic efforts on Iran's nuclear program." NIAC Action refuted the resolution's claim that Israel's strikes have been narrowly targeted, noting that they "have leveled apartment buildings in Iran that have killed dozens of civilians, have led to car bombs in Tehran, and killed women and children—including some who have demonstrated against the Iranian government." "This was not a 'preemptive strike,'" the group said. "Israel did not preempt any imminent threat, but did preempt another round of nuclear negotiations aimed at resolving the nuclear crisis peacefully." "We urge lawmakers to call on the leads of this irresponsible resolution to retract it and instead debate the critical issue that matters—whether the U.S. is going to enter this reckless war of aggression, or whether it will play a productive role and help bring this war to an end," NIAC Action added. Sherman's resolution in support of Israel's assault on Iran came amid bipartisan efforts in the House and Senate to prevent U.S. President Donald Trump from wading into the war without congressional approval. Those efforts have gained the support of dozens of lawmakers in both chambers, but they are running up against an increasingly fierce lobbying push by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which—according to new reporting—has been pressuring Democratic lawmakers to publicly back Israel's war on Iran. Drop Site and The American Prospectjointly reported Thursday that one lawmaker "relayed that a colleague had received literally 100 phone calls from members of AIPAC and its allied pressure groups" calling for a statement declaring that they "stand with Israel" in its war on Iran. "According to a review of member statements at their congressional websites and on social media, 28 House Democrats have issued messages saying explicitly that they 'stand with Israel,' or some close variation thereof," the outlets reported. "Another 35 express unequivocal support for Israel without using the magic words 'stand with Israel' precisely, but they leave no doubt as to the member's support. And 16 others express 'soft' support for Israel, without quite the same inflammatory language." The outlets noted that "three statements have been held up by AIPAC in particular, according to sources familiar with the situation, as models for others to follow. Those are from Reps. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), Mike Levin (D-Calif.), and George Whitesides (D-Calif.). All are 'frontline' members who had relatively close elections in 2024." Sherman, a co-chair of the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, is another Democratic House member who issued a statement supporting Israel's strikes on Iran, claiming that "Iran was extremely close to several nuclear bombs"—an assertion contradicted by U.S. intelligence agencies and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Activist David Hogg, who briefly served as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, and others are calling for primary challenges against any Democrats who support war with Iran. "Democrats must be united against Trump and his war," Hogg wrote on social media earlier this week. "We can't fuck this up." Report Names 'Corporate Oligarchs' Who Are Cashing In as Trump-GOP Austerity Assails Workers "Trump's presidency is a vehicle for billionaires to loot the government and line their own pockets, while working people bear the cost," said one advocate. By Julia Conley • Jun 18, 2025 Climate action, pro-democracy, and other civil society groups have warned for months that the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are intent on cutting essential programs that millions of Americans rely on while providing the richest households and corporations with at least $5 trillion in tax cuts and other benefits. But while tech CEO Elon Musk has been highly visible since President Donald Trump took office and selected him to spearhead the administration's slashing of hundreds of thousands of federal jobs at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—an advisory board Musk has since left—other billionaires who are among the top people set to cash in from Trump's policies are less known to the public, even as they wield considerable influence over corporate regulations, privatization, and right-wing attacks on renewable energy. In a report released Tuesday, the grassroots group Popular Democracy in Action details how six of the top beneficiaries of Trump's assault on social services and his xenophobic, pro-corporate, anti-science policies are cashing in while people across the U.S. struggle with the rising cost of living; fear the administration's mass deportation campaign; and brace for cuts to Medicaid, education, and Social Security. Along with household names like Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos—a former Trump critic—the report, titled Trump's Corporate Oligarchs, points to fossil fuel billionaire Harold G. Hamm, founder and chair of Continental Resources, as someone who has spent years working "behind the scenes to advance oil and gas interests." Hamm is not among the more than 10 billionaires who have nabbed powerful positions within Trump's administration—making his Cabinet the richest in U.S. history, with a collective net worth of $460 billion. But with close ties to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Hamm has pushed to undo former President Joe Biden's fossil fuel regulations within the Inflation Reduction Act and urged Trump to fast-track drilling permits, likely harming poor and rural communities that are disproportionately used for fossil fuel extraction. Last year, it was Hamm who organized a dinner at Trump's Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, where the then-presidential candidate allegedly promised 20 oil and gas executives he would repeal environmental regulations if they raised $1 billion for his campaign. Hamm's company reported over $714 million in tax savings in 2018 from Trump's so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which included the corporate tax cuts that the GOP now seeks to make permanent— Hamm and Trump's other wealthy donors while taxpayers pay more than $20 billion per year toward fossil fuel subsidies, putting their own communities at risk from climate disasters.are able to benefit directly from their chosen candidate's policies—to the detriment of the American public—"because the U.S. is currently functioning as an oligarchy: a government where a small group of powerful, wealthy people are calling the shots," reads the report. George Zoley is another lesser-known oligarch who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Trump's campaigns and is now reaping the rewards as the private prison corporation he founded, GEO Group, benefits directly from the president's mass deportation campaign. Zoley told shareholders shortly after Trump was reelected in November that the coming anti-immigration crackdown would present an "unprecedented opportunity" for GEO Group, which provides 40% of the beds used for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention and is the largest provider of ICE transportation services. The company was also awarded a $1 billion, 15-year contract to open and run the Delaney Hall immigration detention center in Newark, New Jersey. "GEO Group is incentivized by profit to be a willing and enthusiastic partner in the Trump administration's mass incarceration, detention, and deportation plans," reads the report. "GEO Group has been and will continue to be a key force behind the targeting and criminalization of poor, working-class, marginalized communities—including immigrants." Trump's anti-immigration agenda is also being partially fueled by big data firm Palantir, co-founded by another of the oligarchs profiled by Popular Democracy in Action: Peter Thiel, a former mentor of Vice President JD Vance who, despite publicly criticizing Trump during his first term, provided "mission-critical" digital profiling tools to ICE to help track immigrants and conduct raids. Thiel's "anti-democratic, libertarian philosophy" also underpinned the Trump administration and DOGE's work "dismantling federal agencies, attacking diversity and equity programs, pushing deregulation, and dismantling public aid." Despite his past criticism of Trump, Thiel's often secretive firm is projected to report more than $2.6 billion in revenue from government contracts in 2025 as Palantir provides support to the president's mass deportation agenda. "Trump's presidency is a vehicle for billionaires to loot the government and line their own pockets, while working people bear the cost," Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors of Popular Democracy in Action, said in a statement. "These cuts to Medicare, housing, [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits, and immigrant protections aren't accidents—they're part of a calculated scheme to turn public suffering into private profit." The report names Musk, the world's richest person with a net worth of $389.4 billion, as the top beneficiary of the Trump administration, even though the Tesla CEO has officially parted ways with the White House. After spending $235 million to help Trump get elected, in addition to wielding unprecedented influence over the administration, Musk is poised to benefit from billions of dollars in government contracts and foreign deals for his Starlink satellite service—all while benefiting from Trump's tax cuts and pushing to gut the social safety net. The report also highlights Bezos, who has been accused of censoringThe Washington Post's coverage of Trump and the 2024 election, as a top beneficiary of the president's second term. Bezos' space technology company, Blue Origin, was awarded a $2.3 billion contract in April, and he has pledged to "help" Trump as he moves toward "reducing regulation"—including by gutting top worker protection agencies and placing low-income workers at Amazon in harm's way. Popular Democracy in Action also highlighted corporate landlord Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Big Pharma giant Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks. Both have benefited from Trump's tax cuts, while Schwarzman has pushed for corporate deregulation and fought against protections for renters. Ricks was a major opponent of the Inflation Reduction Act's Medicare drug price negotiations program, and benefited recently when Trump "signed a healthcare executive order that will create longer delays before Medicare can negotiate certain drug prices," making healthcare more expensive for seniors while raising Eli Lilly's profits. "In a representative democracy, elected officials are supposed to respond to the priorities and interests of the people," reads the report. "Trump's 'oligarchs' are billionaires who are influencing political decision-making in order to increase their wealth." As Trump Weighs Attack Plans, Iran Says US Intervention Would Be 'Recipe for All-Out War' Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said it would be "extremely reckless" for the Trump administration to join Israel's bombing campaign. By Jake Johnson • Jun 18, 2025 Dems Press Palantir on Trump-Era Contracts for 'Mega-Database' of Americans' Info "We are concerned that Palantir's software could be used to enable domestic operations that violate Americans' rights." By Brett Wilkins • Jun 17, 2025 VIEW ALL NEWS JOIN THE MOVEMENT As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. JOIN WITH US TODAY ■ Opinion Don’t Let Tyrant Trump Plunge Us Into War With Iran With American public opinion strongly against another American war in the Middle East, Trump continues to behave as if he is above the law. By Ralph Nader • Jun 21, 2025 White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the truth about Tyrant Trump the other day regarding President Donald Trump’s war with Israel against Iran. She said, “The President hears all voices across the country, and he makes decisions based on his instincts.” His instincts are wrapped around his ego, his fantasies, and his overbearing arrogance. Imagine Trump ordering 10 million Iranians to evacuate their nation’s capital, or bragging that “we (sic) control the entire skies over Iran.” What he isn’t boasting about is the increased flow of U.S. bombs and missiles being shipped to Israel and the U.S. Navy’s daily firing at incoming Iranian missiles, and the tight planning and coordination with Israel’s military regarding targets and intelligence. On June 18, Trump said, “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” Trump has no idea what he should do. All this war making and threats of much more by Trump, including annihilating Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, constitutes the most serious impeachable offense our Founders strove to safeguard against. The war declaration power is EXCLUSIVELY exercised by Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The Founders most adamantly rejected the idea of a king plunging the nation into wars. With American public opinion strongly against another American war in the Middle East, now with Iran, and after the Iraq disaster, Trump continues to behave as if he is above the law. He said in July 2019, “With Article II, I can do whatever I want as president.” He has also trampled the rule of law, doing this with over 100 illegal executive orders, damaging the American people in scores of deadly and costly ways at a worsening pace, and his threats of violence against foreign countries. On June 18, Trump said, “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” Trump has no idea what he should do. He is personally weighing the messages from his egomaniacal Minder and, thus far, Master, Israel’s cunning tyrant, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Knowing that Trump likes to be with a winner, the Israeli leader can point to many wars that Israel has won. Netanyahu can say that with the U.S. 30,000 lb. bombs to knock out Iran’s nuclear program, he will give credit to Trump and tout him as a peacemaker. He can cite Israel’s past bombings, killings, and sabotage against Iran as proof that Iran is a “paper tiger” incapable of much retaliation. On the other hand, Trump knows that actions in the Middle East trigger unforeseen or unintended consequences. He has long denounced the bungling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His own intelligence community tells him Iran is “not actively building a nuclear weapon.” Israel, on the other hand, has about 200 nuclear warheads and a rapid delivery system. How the climate worsens. In 2007, then presidential aspirant Senator Joe Biden shouted on Chris Matthews’ “Hard Ball” that he would lead a campaign to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without a congressional declaration of war. Contrast this with last Wednesday’s assertion by retired General David Petraeus, the general who led the 101st Airborne Division in the criminal invasion of Iraq and who was former President Barack Obama’s CIA director from 2011 to 2012. He went berserk, saying Trump should order the Ayatollah Khamenei to completely dismantle Iran’s nuclear program (including nuclear energy) or face “the complete destruction of your country and your regime and your people.” If he refuses, Petraeus urges, Trump can “reluctantly… blow them to smithereens.” Ninety million people. Are you crazy David? No blowback afterward, David? Without a congressional declaration of war, self-styled military historian Petraeus? He is outdoing the reemerging armchair neocons led by Bill Kristol, who pressed the Bush regime and American soldiers into the bloody Iraq quagmire. Ironically, Trump is being blasted by his own MAGA mega-influencers—Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and Dave Smith et al.—for betraying his campaign promises to stop “endless wars” and reject the “Deep State” and Empire. They are really incensed to take their denunciations at face value. Dave Smith told his large following that Trump should be “…impeached and removed from office…” As for Iran, which has not invaded anybody in some 250 years, it gets little diplomatic empathy. After all, the U.S. overthrew Iran’s popular, newly elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and installed the dictator Shah. It was bloodily invaded by a U.S.-backed Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s; was targeted along with Iraq and North Korea as part of the “Axis of Evil” by George W. Bush; and has been subjected to terror, sabotage, and military encirclement since then by the U.S. and Israel. Maybe the autocratic Iranian state has been terrified into building proxies in Syria and Lebanon, now demolished. What would we do as a nation if confronted with such overwhelming force and regular attacks? Hardliners in Europe and the U.S. are further demanding that Iran even dump its ballistic missile capability—a level of forced unilateral disarmament, while exposed to the Israeli enemy armed to the nth degree that is actually using armed terror at will in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria—completely defenseless targets of the Israeli empire. It could be a demonstration of some moral courage and patriotism if some retired Generals, (e.g., Mark Milley, Jim Mattis, John Kelly), who were in the first Trump administration, would inform the American people of their views regarding consequences of the new war in the Middle East being considered by Trump and his warmongering, incompetent Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The same holds for the silent retired presidents George W. Bush (perhaps he has learned something from his destruction of Iraq?) and Democrats Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden. The bottom line is whether the Rule of Tyrant Trump or the Rule of Law will prevail. As The New York Times lead editorial on June 19, 2025, trumpeted: ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. The United States Must Not Be Part of Israel's Unlawful War on Iran The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: there can be no offensive use of military force — against Iran or any other country — without an explicit authorization from Congress. No such authorization exists, and any U.S. involvement would therefore be illegal. By Bernie Sanders • Jun 18, 2025 This Is What Authoritarianism Looks Like—and How We Fight Back Sunrise is launching a new campaign to end the oligarchy and save our futures. By Aru Shiney-Ajay • Jun 18, 2025 Everyone Will Lose a Trump War of Choice With Iran Iran will pay an immeasurable price. As will the region. But the U.S. will also pay a very heavy price. By Trita Parsi • Jun 17, 2025 Democratic Civil War: NYC Mayor's Race Will Define Who Runs the Party in 2026 This is where we find out if Democrats will transform or keep managing democracy's decline while the world burns. By Corbin Trent • Jun 16, 2025 What Protesters Know About Human Nature That Trump Doesn't They know the real story of human evolution isn't about the strongest or most ruthless individuals surviving. Instead, our story is about cooperation and empathy. By Emese Ilyés • Jun 14, 2025 VIEW ALL OPINION Call 207.775.0488 to donate by phone or mail a check to: Common Dreams · PO Box 443 · Portland, ME 04112-0443 · USA Common Dreams is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Your contribution is tax-deductible. EIN: 20-3368194