Nobel Prize-winning economist pinpoints major flaw in Trump's 'nervous' Iran war ploy

Ewan Gleadow
April 1, 2026 
RAW STORY

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth looks on, as President Donald Trump delivers remarks, in the Oval Office at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

Donald Trump's plan for the war with Iran could cause even further trouble for taxpayers across the country, according to a Nobel Prize winner.

Paul Krugman has warned that the president's current task in Iran is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Crude oil prices reached a staggering $100 a barrel earlier this week, and the veteran economist does not see the price improving any time soon. Even though the United States' own oil exporters profited from the Strait of Hormuz closure, Krugman claims there is no way this will help the average citizen.

Writing in his Substack, he explained, "Now, America produces a lot of oil, and the domestic oil industry will be earning large windfall profits even as U.S. consumers suffer. But so what?

"We don’t have any mechanism in place to capture and redistribute those windfall gains, so ordinary U.S. families will bear the full brunt of the global oil shock even though America is a net oil exporter."

"The Fed could, in principle, try to look through the effects of the Strait crisis on business costs as well as direct effects on consumer prices. But given how nervous everyone is about the risk of 70s-type stagflation, it probably won’t."

Krugman went on to suggest the reaction of the Federal Reserve could be a cause for concern. "There’s an additional, technical but important reason to be even more worried about soaring prices for diesel, jet fuel and industrial materials than about gasoline prices," he wrote. "It involves how the Federal Reserve is likely to react.

"The Fed normally bases its decisions about whether to reduce or increase interest rates on 'core' inflation — inflation excluding food and energy prices. The reason it does this is that food and energy prices are highly volatile and are usually a poor indicator of what inflation will be over the next few years."

"So the Fed tries to 'look through' inflation fluctuations driven mainly by the prices of groceries and gasoline. For example, it didn’t raise rates in 2011, when there was a temporary uptick in inflation driven entirely by oil prices."

Trump just earned an economic title he'll never brag about

Robert Reich
March 30, 2026 

RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump walks as he heads to Marine One

 to travel to Ohio and Kentucky, from the White House in Washington, D.C.,

 U.S., March 11, 2026. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Friends,

When he ran for president again in 2024, Trump made three promises to the American public:

(1) He said he’d “secure” the southern border. Most Americans now believe he’s gone too far in this.

(2) He’d avoid foreign wars. He said: “We’ve spent $8 trillion in the Middle East, and we’re not fixing our roads in this country? How stupid. How stupid is it? And we’re not fixing our highways, our tunnels, our bridges, our hospitals, even.” Umm. How well has this promise turned out?

(3) His third promise was to bring prices down and create more jobs. He said: “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods.”


In fact, Trump has pushed prices way up.


As of today, the price of Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, is above $116 a barrel. The average price for a gallon of gas in the United States is now $4.00, and many people are paying far more. Food costs are also heading upward.

He’s also raised tariffs on imports. This has increased the prices of everything we buy from abroad.

He has also pledged to be “the greatest jobs president that God has ever created.”


But he’s been the worst jobs president in American history.

In his first term, Trump presided over a historic net loss of nearly 3 million jobs, the worst jobs numbers ever recorded under an American president.

So far in his second term, he has presided over a loss of 150,000 jobs. (By contrast, in the final 14 months of Joe Biden’s presidency, the economy added 1.74 million jobs.)


The only thing Trump has done to make any Americans better off is to cut taxes on the rich and big corporations. He did this in his second term. It was also his major economic policy in his first term (which he promised would result in $4,000 annual raises for everyone else. How did that work out? Did you get a $4,000 raise?)

May I speak plainly? Trump has turned the American economy into s---.Trump’s economic record is only slightly worse than that of every Republican president before him. Here’s the historic truth that everyone needs to understand: The American economy does worse under Republican presidents. Since 1933, the U.S. economy has grown nearly twice as fast on average under Democrats.

Wage growth slowed after Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich and big corporations. And the Bush and Trump tax cuts didn’t trickle down, either.


These giveaways to the wealthy have come at the expense of investments in infrastructure, education, and health care — making life more expensive and difficult for everyone who isn’t rich.

They’ve also exploded the debt and deficit.

Reagan oversaw a 186 percent increase in the national debt — the biggest percentage increase in over 70 years.


The Bush and Trump tax cuts — which mostly benefited corporations and the rich — are the main reasons why America’s debt continues to grow faster than the economy.

Look at the historic record and you see something else: Republican presidents have led us into the three worst economic crises of the last hundred years.

The Great Depression began in 1929 under Herbert Hoover. The Great Recession began in 2008 under George W. Bush. The pandemic recession of 2020 began under Trump.


Democrats (FDR, Obama, and Biden) led us out of these Republican economic crises.

Republicans talk about “running the country like a business.” Sure. They’ve run it the way Trump ran his businesses: with massive debts, a string of failures, and payouts for the folks at the top, while average workers get shafted again and again.

Given Republicans’ track record, why would any hardworking American put their financial security in the hands of a Republican president (or, for that matter, a Republican Congress) ever again?

Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

Right-wing editor tears into Trump's endless 'national emergency' declarations

(Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Matthew Rozsa

April 01, 2026 

ALTERNET

President Donald Trump is displaying nothing short of “narcissistic authoritarianism” when he repeatedly describes various things as being a “national emergency,” according to a right-leading editor.

“Much like his notion of what constitutes a ‘national emergency,’ Trump's perception of existential threats to the republic is highly idiosyncratic,” wrote Reason Magazine editor Jacob Sullum in a piece published Tuesday. Sullum then reviewed the list of issues that Trump has characterized in apocalyptic terms including crime, terrorism, illegal immigration, “Democratic electoral victories” and "constitutionally protected criticism of Trump.” From there, Sullum went into detail about an issue that he has raised before — Trump’s attempt to prosecute members of Congress who urge members of the military to ignore illegal orders.

“That video, which featured two senators and four representatives, reminded U.S. military personnel of their duty to ‘refuse illegal orders,’” Sullum wrote. “The Trump administration is ‘pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,’ the legislators said. ‘We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.’ Although ‘we know this is hard,’ they added, ‘your vigilance is critical,’ and ‘we have your back.’”


Trump tried to indict the legislators but failed, with Sullum writing that the federal grand jury rejecting the proposed indictment was a “striking rebuke, since grand jurors, who hear only the government's side of a case, almost always approve charges recommended by federal prosecutors.”

He added, “Two days later, in a separate case involving the Defense Department's attempt to punish Sen. Mark Kelly (D–Ariz.) for participating in the video, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the retired naval officer's criticism of Trump was ‘unquestionably protected’ by the First Amendment.”


Overall Sullum concluded Trump’s habit reflects “the narcissistic authoritarianism that underlies much of what Trump says and does, whether it is declaring nonexistent crises, waging war without congressional approval, summarily executing suspected cocaine smugglers, asserting unlimited tariff authority, attempting to rewrite statutes or the Constitution by presidential decree, demanding impeachment of judges who rule against him, using the criminal justice system to punish his foes, or threatening people who say things he does not like with deportation, regulatory penalties, grant revocations, or other unpleasant consequences.”

Sullum has previously criticized Trump, even though both men identify with factions of America’s political right-wing. Earlier in March, he did so by blasting the president’s law enforcement policies.

"Under federal law," Sullum wrote, "millions of Americans are committing felonies right now because they own guns and use marijuana — even if they live in states that have legalized the drug. There is nothing unconstitutional about that baffling situation, a Trump Administration lawyer assured the Supreme Court on Monday, (March 2), because cannabis consumers are analogous to 'habitual drunkards,' who historically, could be confined to workhouses or mental institutions. Most of the justices, including both Republican and Democratic appointees, seemed skeptical of that claim."


Sullum concluded, "Their agreement reflected the trans-partisan alliances inspired by this case, which illustrates the potential for common ground between right-leaning critics of gun control and left-leaning critics of the War on Drugs."

Similarly in February Sullum argued that the Justice Department prosecuting Trump’s critic should encounter the legal obstacles that did indeed beset them.

"In 2013, several Republican senators questioned President Barack Obama's use of drones to kill suspected terrorists," Sullum wrote. "The lawmakers, who included Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ted Cruz (R–Texas), Mike Lee (R–Utah), and Marco Rubio (R–Fla.), were especially troubled by the possibility that drones might be deployed against American citizens on U.S. soil, which, they argued, would be clearly unlawful in the absence of an imminent threat. How would Republicans have reacted if Obama, assisted by a Justice Department eager to do his bidding, threatened to arrest and jail those critics? That is how President Donald Trump has responded to Democratic legislators who worry about his potentially illegal use of military power."

Writing for Reason Magazine as a contributor in 2024, this author quoted President Grover Cleveland, who though a Democrat articulated in his 1887 State of the Union message the philosophy in favor of low tariffs that conservatives and libertarians have consistently advocated throughout American history. A number of Reason Magazine contributors have criticized Trump for his high tariffs.

"When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share toward the careful and economical maintenance of the Government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice," Cleveland wrote in that address. "This wrong inflicted upon those who bear the burden of national taxation, like other wrongs, multiplies a brood of evil consequences."

Pope Leo Delivers ‘Rebuke’ of Pete Hegseth With Anti-War Palm Sunday Sermon

“This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war.”


Pope Leo XIV greets the crowd as he leaves after presiding over a mass at San Pancrazio cathedral at Albano Laziale on July 20, 2025 in Albano Laziale, Italy.
(Photo by Ernesto Ruscio/Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Mar 29, 2026
 COMMON DREAMS

Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.




Pope Leo to Iran War Architects: ‘Cease Fire’

‘Heretical and Batshit Crazy’: Hegseth Rebuked for Bloodthirsty Prayer Asking God to Bless Iran War

“This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” Pope Leo said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”

The pope also encouraged followers to “raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace.”

While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration’s unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.

Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers “wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy,” adding that “we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ.”

Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope’s sermon as a “rebuke” of Hegseth, whom he noted “has been open about his support for a Christian crusade” in the Middle East.

Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said “the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time.”

“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars,” Cardinal Pizzaballa added.

Bush advisor says Trump admin's weaponization of Christianity is a 'scam'

Matthew Rozsa

April 01, 2026 

President Donald Trump and his advisers forget that America was not founded as a Christian nation, a former aide to a different Republican president warned on Tuesday.

“The separation of church and state is foundational to American civilization,” Steve Schmidt, who advised President George W. Bush, said on his Substack. “In fact, on the list of the greatest American inventions, the two at the top — competing for gold and silver — are the peaceful transition of power and the separation of church and state. These are brilliant ideas, the greatest in all of history.”

Yet according to Schmidt, Trump is violating this separation in dangerous and deliberate ways. Specifically, he called out Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for explicitly citing “our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” when justifying America’s recent invasion of Iran.

“Do you see all the Stars of David in the Normandy cemetery?” Schmidt said. “World War II was not a Christian mission. The United States Army is not a Christian organization. In America, we have a right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech — and all of it is under threat from Donald Trump and his administration.”

Ultimately, Schmidt refused to classify America’s war in Iran as being motivated by any form of respectable Christianity.

“This is not religion,” Schmidt said. “This is a scam. This is a con.”

Schmidt is not alone in critiquing the Trumpist version of Christianity. Religious studies scholar Sarah Posner recently spoke with The Daily Beast's Greg Sargent about Pope Leo XIV, the American-born Pope who denounced warmongering interpretations of Christianity in a speech delivered shortly after Hegseth's breakfast prayer.

"Hegseth is expressing an extreme version of Christian supremacy, where America, a Christian nation, is entitled, and in fact probably, in his mind, required by God, to smite America's enemies — or to smite the enemies of Christianity, even, Posner said. "When we talk about Christian nationalism, this is exactly what we're talking about. But the important thing to remember with Hegseth, in contrast to other versions of Christian nationalism that we see more commonly in the Republican Party, is that his is a very extreme version of Christian supremacy where we Christians are entitled to go out and take dominion over the world, to vanquish enemies, and to do so violently — and even when they do so violently, with the express mandate from God."

Speaking with this journalist for Salon in 2024 about historian Federico Finchelstein comparing Trump’s far right “rhetorical violence” to that of Nazi German dictator Adolf Hitler, Leavitt replied that “it's been less 72 hours since the second assassination attempt on President Trump's life and the media is already back to comparing President Trump to Hitler. It's disgusting. This is why Americans have zero trust in the liberal mainstream media."

As Schmidt pointed out, America was founded as an explicitly secular country. The First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” while President Thomas Jefferson — who also co-authored the Declaration of Independence — wrote in 1802 that “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God” and as such “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions” because the American people “declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

UK security officials withhold intel from US as Trump trashes allies: insiders


Thomas Kika

April 01, 2026

ALTERNET



The U.K. has reportedly ceased a nearly century-long agreement to share intelligence with the U.S., according to inside sources who spoke with The i Paper, citing President Donald Trump's erratic and aggressive behavior, as well as his tendency towards "screwing over allies."

In a report published Wednesday, sources indicated to the outlet that the vital security relationship shared between the U.S. and the U.K. "has been plunged into uncertainty," in the wake of "Washington’s threats to Greenland, its ambition to interfere in European politics and public outrage over Britain’s refusal to join the US war with Iran." Trump's repeated insults towards Britain's past military engagements with the U.S. and "personal insults" towards Prime Minister Kier Starmer have also driven the decision.

The joint intelligence-sharing relationship between the U.S. and the U.K. dates back to 1941, with "the exchange of information on Japanese and German ciphers" prior to the former's official entry into World War II. Since then, the partnership, known as "Two Eyes," has evolved into "a cornerstone of the Western alliance, with intelligence and military officials working together to combat all manner of threats, from direct war to clandestine operations."

According to one source in the U.K. Foreign Office, Trump's desire for an "America First" agenda has turned into a habit of "screwing over allies," with no indication that he will change course anytime soon. In the face of this behavior, the source said that the U.K. "cannot trust" its longtime ally for the time being. The i Paper further cited another recent report from the Financial Times, which revealed that American officials are being asked to leave meetings within U.K. government departments whenever "sensitive information" is being discussed.

Another British intelligence official told The i Paper that the decision was "tit for tat," arguing that it only came in response to the "similar hostilities" perpetrated by the U.S. John Foreman, the former Defense Attaché for the U.K. to Russia, added that “trust once gone is hard to restore."


"If the U.S. aren’t willing to ensure that UK secrets remain classified, then restrictions will have to be put in place," Foreman said. "But [this is] hard when intelligence sharing is so deep and wide.”

A senior official with NATO also told the outlet that Trump's rhetoric earlier in the year about annexing Greenland was "creating tensions and distrust" between the U.S. and its longtime European allies, including the U.K.

“We used to get beers together, but now it’s really strange," the source said. "I have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan side-by-side with Americans. This is very disruptive in a way that I have never thought of before because it is so unrealistic and surprising.”

'It was a test': Trump moves against NATO as members 'weren't there for us'

Ewan Gleadow
April 1, 2026 

RAW STORY



FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump gestures next to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg as they attend a working lunch during the NATO leaders summit in Watford, Britain, December 4, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Donald Trump has suggested he has no interest in continuing with NATO and may even pull the United States out of the intergovernmental organization.

The president has done much to anger the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's members this year, strongly implying he would take Greenland by force if necessary. His administration's strikes on Iran last month marked another contentious point for the president and his relationship with NATO, as he called on member nations to back the war.

Speaking to The Telegraph, Trump said, “Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration. I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way."

Trump went on to use the war in Ukraine as an example of where he felt the US had been let down by NATO members and other governments.

Trump added, "Beyond not being there, it was actually hard to believe. And I didn’t do a big sale. I just said, ‘Hey’, you know, I didn’t insist too much. I just think it should be automatic.

"We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us."

The president's comments on NATO follow on from Secretary of State Marco Rubio denouncing the intergovernmental organization.

In an interview with Hashem Ahelbarra of Al Jazeera, the Donald Trump appointee criticized the NATO alliance for not backing the US war on Iran, and then stated, “I think it was very disappointing. You have this – and again, look, the President and our country will have to reexamine all of this after this operation is over."

"But one of the reasons why NATO is beneficial to the United States is it gives us basing rights for contingencies. It allows us to station troops and aircraft and weapons in parts of the world that we wouldn’t normally have bases, and that includes in much of Europe.”

Avi Lewis Models How to Be a Climate Champion Despite Opposition

His forthright approach on a difficult issue is likely to appeal to voters.


Progressive activist Avi Lewis walks onstage at the New Democratic Party’s convention in Winnipeg, Manitoba, holding hands with his wife Naomi Klein, after being elected party leader on March 29, 2026.
(Photo from Avi Lewis for Leader)

Linda Mcquaig
Apr 01, 2026

Toronto Star


Well, as honeymoons go, that was brief.

Avi Lewis may well have set a record for honeymoon brevity in Canadian politics. He wasn’t even done accepting the great prize of winning the leadership of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) last Sunday before two key figures in his own party denounced him over his resolve to move the country beyond fossil fuels.

Lewis may also have set something of a record for sheer cheerfulness in the face of such speedy backstabbing.

In response to Alberta NDP leader Naheed Nenshi’s attack, Lewis didn’t miss a beat. Even as reporters pressed him for some hot words, Lewis remained buoyant and smiling as he insisted these disputes are necessary and inevitable. He even went on to voice strong support for Nenshi, maintaining that what really matters is Nenshi defeating Danielle Smith to become Alberta premier.

But while the issue is tough, the way forward is clear. Science doesn’t give us a lot of wiggle room; the clock is running out on the world’s remaining chances of preventing carbon emissions from reaching catastrophic levels.

Talk about turning the other cheek; that was a class act. It suggests that Lewis may have a shot at knitting the party together, despite this rather troubled start.

Of course, knitting the party together won’t be easy. There’s a serious divide in the NDP over whether fossil fuels should be kept in the ground, for the sake of saving the planet.

Let’s face it—this is a tricky issue for the NDP.

On one hand, climate action is a winning issue for the party; most progressive voters care about climate, and Prime Minister Mark Carney has opened up lots of territory on his left flank by abandoning any plausible claim to being a climate champion with his willingness to embrace Big Oil.

On the other hand, the fossil fuel industry is powerful and employs Canadians, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan—the two provinces where NDP leaders are hostile to Lewis.

But while the issue is tough, the way forward is clear. Science doesn’t give us a lot of wiggle room; the clock is running out on the world’s remaining chances of preventing carbon emissions from reaching catastrophic levels.

Furthermore, the world has already started transitioning to renewable energy. Not only are renewables increasingly affordable—battery costs have declined by 99% over the last three decades—but rebuilding our economy around them would be a huge job creator.

In fact, fossil fuel employment is on the decline, as the industry becomes less labor-intensive. Over the past decade, fossil fuel employment in Canada has already shrunk by 38,000 jobs, even as oil and gas production has risen significantly, notes economist Jim Stanford, director of the Centre for Future Work.

So Lewis is doing the right thing—not only in championing climate action, but in coming out and stating his position clearly, despite the political heat he’s taking for it inside his own party. This forthright approach on a difficult issue is likely to appeal to voters.

In addition to the knives wielded inside the party, Lewis can expect scorn from mainstream commentators, who tend to dismiss him as a left-wing extremist.

But are his positions too extreme for the electorate, or just too extreme for mainstream commentators?

Lewis advocates publicly-owned grocery stores and banks—ideas outside the political mainstream. But, given the way grocery and bank monopolies are squeezing customers these days, is it far-fetched to imagine voters might support public alternatives?

Interestingly, Toronto City Council voted last week to establish a pilot project for public grocery stores. And public banking through the post office, which existed in Canada for decades, could be a welcome alternative for low-income customers stung by payday loan operators, as well as for residents in rural areas, where banks are scarce.

Lewis also proposes a wealth tax on the very rich—again, an idea ridiculed by many mainstream commentators. But polls show it has wide popular support.

Perhaps these sorts of left-wing populist ideas have had trouble succeeding in Canadian politics because they’ve lacked a passionate and articulate advocate.

That may have just changed.


© 2023 TheStar.com


Linda Mcquaig
Linda McQuaig is an author, journalist, and former NDP candidate for Toronto Centre in the Canadian federal election. The National Post has described her as "Canada's Michael Moore." She is also the author of "The Sport and Prey of Capitalists: How the Rich Are Stealing Canada's Public Wealth" (2019), "War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet: It's the Crude, Dude" (2006) and (with Neil Brooks) of "Billionaires' Ball: Gluttony and Hubris in an Age of Epic Inequality" (2012).
Full Bio >

NDP leader Naheed Nenshi IS A FORMER LIBERAL,  BUT EVEN FORMER NDP PREMIER  RACHEL NOTLEY WAS VOCALLY OPPOSED TO THE FEDERAL PARTY OVER ALBERTA HYDROCARBONS

THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS

SEE

THE ALBERTA NDP THE PARTY OF OIL WORKERS

THE COINCIDENTAL BIRTH OF THE NEW DEMOCRATS 

AND THE OIL INDUSTRY IN ALBERTA

Cuba Operating on Fumes While Marco Rubio Smirks

It’s doubly ironic that Rubio who thinks he knows so much about Cuba has been to Cuba only once, for only one day visiting the American prison at the US naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba.


A man walks as the Russian oil tanker Anatoly Kolodkin is seen at the oil terminal in the port of Matanzas, northwestern Cuba, on March 31, 2026. The Anatoly Kolodkin, a tanker under US sanctions carrying 730,000 barrels of crude, is set to deliver the first crude shipment to Cuba since January after Washington gave the crisis-hit island a reprieve from an effective fuel blockade.
(Photo by Yamil Lage / AFP via Getty Images)

Ann Wright
Apr 01, 2026

Common Dreams


As 700 international solidarity citizens visited Cuba last weekend, Cuban-American Secretary of State Marco Rubio smirked at the humanitarian disaster his and Trump’s policies were wrecking on Cuba, as small island nation of 9 million people only 90 miles off the tip of Florida. Rubio had predicted the Cuban government would fall from the disastrous policies, particularly the blockade of fuel to the island.

But Rubio’s plan was partially upended on Sunday night, when President Trump decided to allow a Russian oil tanker carrying 100 tons of oil to deliver it to Cuba.

International Citizens Solidarity with Cuba, While Nations Turn Their Backs on Cuba

Last weekend, I was in Cuba for the second time in two months, joining 700 international solidarity citizens from 30 countries. Organized in less than six weeks by Progressive International, CODEPINK: Women For Peace, and many other groups, hundreds of persons outraged about the latest US punishment of the Cuban people saw very quickly and deeply the inhumane effects of the recent oil embargo as well as the cumulative effects of a 65-year-old US economic blockade of Cuba.

On my first trip this year, in late January 2026, the capital city of Havana, where we spent most of our time, was showing definite signs of the negative effects of the blockade, particularly of the fuel shortage.

Six weeks later in mid-March, the lack of fuel was starkly evident. Very few cars were on the streets. Lines for the few buses with fuel were very long.

Cubans were cooking with wood in the parks as electricity was sporadic.

Electrical blackouts of the entire country were frequent.

Hospital generators were almost out of fuel.

Cuba Operating on Fumes

Aiming directly at Mexico, Trump’s January 29, 2026 executive order threatened heavy tariffs on “any other country that directly or indirectly sells or otherwise provides any oil to Cuba.” PEMEX, the Mexico state oil company, has been the primary supplier of oil to Cuba after the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January. Sadly, bending to Washington’s threat, with only two to three weeks left of oil in Cuba at the time of the executive order, the Mexican government suspended shipments of oil to keep the country running.

While rumors abounded of Russia sending an oil tanker to Cuba, no ship was in sight until Sunday.

In the meantime, Cuba is operating on fumes.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Willing to Torpedo the Entire Country of Cuba

It is ironic that Cuban-American Rubio has US citizenship through the “birthright law” that he and the Trump administration are trying to eliminate. The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Rubio’s case for torpedoing the birthright law on April 1.

Rubio was born in the US of non-U.S. citizen parents who fled the Baptista regime before the Cuban revolution against Baptista. Finally, journalists delved into his background years after Rubio entered politics and he was forced to acknowledge his “birthright” citizenship something he had kept hidden.

It’s doubly ironic that Rubio who thinks he knows so much about Cuba has been to Cuba only once, for only one day visiting the American prison at the US naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba.

Rubio grew up in Miami in midst of the fervent anti-revolution rhetoric and actions. He quickly saw that his political future rested with being as anti-revolution as possible, despite the strides in health and education that were being made in Cuba.

U.S. Government, not the Cuban Government, Holding up Compensation of US Citizens and Corporations from 1959 Nationalization

In his many years in Florida state politics and then as a US senator, Rubio refused to acknowledge that it was the US government that stopped compensation of US individuals and corporations when the revolutionary government nationalized services for the people to take them from the hands of the private sector that was getting richer and richer off the backs of the poverty stricken and enslaved Cubans.

After the 1959 revolution, Cuba negotiated “lump sum” compensation packages with Canada, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Spain, and France for individuals and corporations whose property had been nationalized.

The United States, however, refused to participate in the compensation plan for US individuals and businesses. Instead, the US decided efforts to overthrow the revolutionary Cuban government would be its strategy.

Today, 65-years later, in order to attract US private investment to Cuba, Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossio told Drop Site News that the Cuban government will attempt to convince the US government to agree to a “lump sum” to handle the claims of approximately 6,000 US individuals and businesses who have filed claims for nationalized property, as a part of a larger agreement that would eliminate US sanctions and the economic blockade. The claims that have been certified by US Foreign Claims settlement Commission initially totaled $1.9 billion but now with interest accumulated over the decades amount to around $9 billion.

Trump’s “Change of Heart” to Let Oil Come Into Cuba

On an evening flight of Air Force One on Sunday, President Trump said to reporters: “I told them if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem with that, whether it’s Russia or not. Whether or not they get a boat of oil, it’s not going to matter. I’d prefer letting it in, whether it’s Russia or anybody else, because the people need heat and cooling and everything else.”

The Russian-owned oil tanker Anatoly Kolodkin left Primorsk, Russia on March 8 carrying 730,000 barrels of crude oil (100,000 tons) and is expected to dock at the Matanzas, Cuba oil storage facility on the morning of April 1. The tanker was accompanied by a Russian naval escort through the English Channel. The oil will be processed at one of Cuba’s three refineries, located in Havana, Cienfuegos, and Santiago.

When questioned about the oil delivery, Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, “The brutal blockade is jeopardizing life-support systems and electricity generation” and inhibiting the ability of Cubans to provide medical services. “Russia considers it its duty not to stand idly by and to provide the necessary assistance to our Cuban friends.”

International Group Visits Cuba in Solidarity with the Cuban People

The international delegations last week with over 700 persons were a part of a globalized effort called the Nuestra América Convoy organized by Progressive International. Hundreds of people came to Cuba from Latin America, the United States, Canada, and Europe to denounce the US blockade on Cuba and deliver life-saving aid to the Cuban people.

CODEPINK’s Nuestra América Convoy delegation of 170 people brought together a politically diverse but deeply aligned group of people—healthcare workers, lawyers, professors, students, veterans, labor organizers, journalists, independent media workers, photographers, filmmakers, writers, artists, researchers, faith-based activists, immigrant justice organizers, reproductive justice advocates, Palestine solidarity activists, Black liberation organizers, cultural workers, and more.

CODEPINK’s delegation delivered 6,300 pounds of urgently needed medicines and medical supplies, including neonatal equipment, analgesics, catheters, and other critical hospital materials. The supplies, valued at $433,000, were collected by Global Health Partners.

In addition to the several tons of medical aid, delegates brought suitcases containing supplies tailored to the needs of specific groups affected by the blockade, such as LGBTQ+ people, artists, students, animals, and others.

In total, the Nuestra America convoy delivered:More than $400,000 of humanitarian supplies on a charter flight, including medical equipment, medicines, staple foods, infant nutrition products, and hygiene supplies, coordinated by CODEPINK.
Over $500,000 worth of solar panels and generators to support hospitals and essential infrastructure facing electricity shortages.
Over 2000 pounds of medical supplies from Europe, carried by a medical delegation travelling from Milan, Italy.
Cancer medicines valued at $23,000 organized by Global Exchange.
Around 1100 pounds of medical supplies from Brazil, coordinated by the Brazilian Front of Solidarity with Cuba.
Solar-powered equipment from Colombia, including solar chargers and lighting systems.
Menstrual health kits for approximately 1,300 women, organized by a solidarity coalition in Mexico.
$100,000 in aid for maternity centers.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Ann Wright
Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She is the co-author of the book "Dissent: Voices of Conscience."
Full Bio >

Russian tanker set to deliver oil to crisis-hit Cuba


By AFP
March 31, 2026


The Anatoly Kolodkin, a tanker under US sanctions, is on its way to the port of Matanzas, east of Havana, with 730,000 barrels of crude - Copyright AFP Yamil LAGE

Lisandra COTS

A Russian oil tanker was set to deliver the first crude shipment to Cuba since January on Tuesday after Washington gave the crisis-hit island a reprieve from an effective fuel blockade.

The Anatoly Kolodkin, a tanker under US sanctions, was on its way to the port of Matanzas, east of Havana, with 730,000 barrels of crude.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to let Russia deliver the oil avoids a confrontation with Moscow and provides temporary relief to a country that has endured blackouts, fuel rationing and dwindling public transportation.

“We’ll welcome it with open arms. You have no idea how badly we need that oil,” said Rosa Perez, a 74-year-old retiree whose home in Matanzas had lost power again.

“Let’s see if things improve for us, even just a little… I can’t take it anymore,” she told AFP, voicing hope that more shipments will follow.

Trump said Sunday that he did not object to Russia or others sending oil to the island because Cubans “have to survive.”

The White House denied however that there was any change to US sanctions policy.

“We allowed this ship to reach Cuba in order to provide humanitarian needs to the Cuban people. These decisions are being made on a case-by-case basis,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said.



– Driving Cuba ‘to the brink’ –



Cuba was cut off from oil supplies in January after US forces ousted its main regional ally, Venezuela’s socialist leader Nicolas Maduro, and Trump threatened tariffs on countries that send crude to the country.

The US president has mused about “taking” the communist-ruled island, though Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel confirmed in March that Cuban and US officials had held talks.

Ricardo Herrero, executive director of the Cuba Study Group, a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, said the aim of restricting oil was to force Havana “to make real concessions at the negotiating table.”

“The strategy here is to drive the system to the brink,” Herrero told AFP. “But it’s not to precipitate a full-blown societal or humanitarian collapse.”

“It’s all consistent with idea that the US holds all the cards and they’ll decide when to hold, when to fold and when they go all in,” he said.



– Two weeks of diesel –



Cubans have endured seven nationwide blackouts since 2024, including two in March, and fuel prices have soared.

The blackouts as well as persistent shortages of food and medicine have fueled public frustration and some rare protests.

Analysts said the Russian oil would buy the Cuban economy only a few weeks.

Jorge Pinon, an expert on Cuba’s energy sector at the University of Texas at Austin, said the more urgent need is diesel, which could be used for backup power generators or for transportation systems to keep the economy running.

It would take a month to refine the oil and deliver the diesel, which would be enough to cover demand for about two weeks, he said.

Herrero said the shipment was just “another donation” by Cuba’s Russian ally, but he doubted that Moscow wanted to subsidize the Cuban economy in the long term.

“This is not going to help the economy recover,” he said. “This is just humanitarian aid.”

Cubans ready for Russian oil but some say not enough


By AFP
March 30, 2026


A Russian oil tanker is due to arrive in the Cuban port of Matanzas by Tuesday - Copyright AFP STRINGER

Laurent Thomet and Lisandra Cots

Cubans on Monday cautiously welcomed the imminent arrival of a Russian oil shipment, with some warning it would do little to ease an energy crisis after US President Donald Trump granted a reprieve from an oil blockade.

The Anatoly Kolodkin, a tanker under US sanctions carrying 730,000 barrels of crude, was due to arrive by Tuesday with the first shipment of oil to the communist-ruled island since January.

Trump’s decision to let Russia deliver oil to Cuba avoids a confrontation with Moscow and provides a potential lifeline to a country that has endured blackouts, fuel rationing and dwindling public transportation.

“It’s wonderful. Of course it’s going to be a huge help given the situation we’re facing in our country,” Miriam Joseph, a 65-year-old government worker in Havana, told AFP.

Others said it was not enough to solve Cuba’s crisis.

“It’s a drop in the bucket compared to what this country needs. It means next to nothing,” said Raul Pomares, a 56-year-old gardener waiting for a taxi in the capital.

“It’s a symbolic gesture that won’t have any real impact on the economy for ordinary Cubans,” he added.

Moscow said Monday it was “pleased” that the tanker had reached Cuban waters.

“Russia considers it its duty to step up and provide necessary assistance to our Cuban friends,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

Peskov said Moscow and Washington had been in touch over the shipment.

“We don’t mind having somebody get a boatload, because they need — they have to survive,” Trump said on Sunday.

“I told them, if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem with that. Whether it’s Russia or not,” he said.

But he predicted that the oil delivery would have no impact as he renewed his threats against the Cuban government.

“Cuba’s finished, they have a bad regime, they have very bad and corrupt leadership, and whether or not they get a boat of oil it’s not going to matter,” Trump said.

Cuba lost its main regional ally and oil supplier in January when US forces captured Venezuela’s socialist leader Nicolas Maduro.

Trump subsequently threatened to impose tariffs on any country sending oil to Cuba and has mused about “taking” the island of 9.6 million people.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, whose country last sent crude to Cuba in January, said Monday that there are talks with private companies about buying oil from Mexico’s state-owned energy company to sell it to private entities in Cuba.

Washington slightly eased the blockade last month to allow oil sales to Cuba’s small private sector.



– Diesel for buses or power? –



The Anatoly Kolodkin was just north of central Cuba on Monday and is estimated to arrive at the western port of Matanzas by Tuesday morning, according to shipping tracker MarineTraffic.

It would take about 15-20 days to process the oil and another 5-10 days to deliver its refined products, according to Jorge Pinon, an expert on Cuba’s energy sector at the University of Texas at Austin.

The Russian shipment could be converted into 250,000 barrels of diesel, enough to cover the country’s demand for around 12.5 days, Pinon told AFP.

The government would have to decide whether to use the fuel for backup power generators or for buses, tractors and trains needed to keep the economy going for two weeks, he added.

“This little diesel that they have, which is not a lot, where do they prioritize it?” Pinon said.

The oil would likely not be used for Cuba’s aging thermoelectric power plants, which rely on the country’s own crude production.

Cubans have endured regular outages as the power plants struggle to meet demand, with seven nationwide blackouts since 2024, including two this month.

The blackouts as well as persistent shortages of food, medicine and other basics, have fueled public frustration and some rare protests.

Orlando Ocana, a 76-year-old retiree, said the Russian shipment was a “Band-Aid.”

“It’s a relief, but it’s not the solution,” he said. “The real solution to our problems is building new thermoelectric power plants.”

Win for Public Media as Federal Judge Blocks Trump Assault on NPR, PBS Funding

NPR’s CEO called the ruling “a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.”

CANADIANS FUND PBS TOO

Elmo and Cookie Monster celebrate the return of Sesame Street Live! at the Empire State Building on February 18, 2022 in New York City.
(Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for Empire State Realty Trust)

Jessica Corbett
Mar 31, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Although the Corporation for Public Broadcasting dissolved at the beginning of the year, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service still celebrated a win in court on Tuesday, when a federal judge in Washington, DC blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order intended to strip the organizations of federal funding.

NPR’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous, called US District Judge Randolph’s permanent injunction “a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press.”

“As the court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—'to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” he said in a statement to The Associated Press. “The executive order crossed that line.”

Katherine Maher, NPR’s CEO, similarly described the ruling as “a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.”

PBS said in a statement that “we’re thrilled with today’s decision declaring the executive order unconstitutional.”

“As we argued, and Judge Moss ruled, the executive order is textbook unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, in violation of long-standing First Amendment principles,” the network added. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”

Trump last May ordered the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to “cease direct funding to NPR and PBS, consistent with my administration’s policy to ensure that federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage.” As private donations poured in to NPR and PBS, Congress then voted to claw back nearly $1.1 billion from CPB.

The congressionally created and funded nonprofit corporation, which distributed federal funding to locally managed public radio and television stations across the United States, then announced it would shut down—which it ultimately did following a January vote by its board of directors. Still, NPR and PBS fought back in court, leading to Tuesday’s decision.



“The president may, of course, engage in his own expressive conduct, including criticizing the views, reporting, or programming of NPR, PBS, or any other news outlet with whom he disagrees,” wrote Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

“The government may also fund its own speech and may fund government programs that promote specific perspectives on issues of public importance, and it may decide which views or perspectives to convey—and which not to convey—in any such government speech or program,” Moss continued. “And it may impose limits on federal grants to ensure that they are deployed to further the legitimate purposes of the program, and may pick and choose among applicants based on legitimate criteria.”

“But the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—'to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” the judge stressed. “As the Supreme Court and DC Circuit have observed on more than a dozen occasions, the government ‘may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.”

Moss found that “Executive Order 14290 crosses that line. It does not define or regulate the content of government speech or ensure compliance with a federal program. Nor does it set neutral and germane criteria that apply to all applicants for a federal grant program. Instead, it singles out two speakers and, on the basis of their speech, bars them from all federally funded programs.”

“It does so, moreover, without regard to whether the federal funds are used to pay for the nationwide interconnection systems,” he explained, “which serve as the technological backbones of public radio and television; to provide safety and security for journalists working in war zones; to support the emergency broadcast system; or to produce or distribute music, children’s, or other educational programming, or documentaries.”

The judge noted that the order applied to grants from not only the now-defunct CPB but all federal entities, including the Department of Education, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and National Endowment for the Arts.

Because of those other potential sources of money, CNN reported Tuesday, “the ruling could—emphasis on could—lead to some funding for PBS and NPR in the future.”



Welcoming the decision in a statement, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said that “NPR and PBS are valuable resources for the American public. Children across socioeconomic backgrounds rely on their programming, and the political persecution of both stations by the Trump administration has been reprehensible.”

“This ruling is a straightforward win for the rule of law,” she continued. “The Constitution is very clear: Congress holds the power of the purse. This judicial ruling is appropriate, impactful and a victory for democracy.”

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, tied the development to the Trump administration’s other attacks on the media, specifically those from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“As the court said, it’s long been the law that the government can’t circumvent the Constitution by conditioning benefits on censorship where it can’t censor directly,” Stern said. “That goes for publicly funded media, but it also goes for Brendan Carr’s FCC conditioning broadcast licenses or merger approvals for private media companies on editorial concessions to please Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth conditioning access to the Pentagon on journalists forfeiting established rights, or Trump himself steering transactions like the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger to supporters of his who promise him ‘sweeping changes’ to bend the news to his liking.”

“Virtually all of the administration’s ‘wins’ in reshaping the media that Carr and Trump have bragged about at CPAC and in social media posts violate this well-established constitutional principle,” he added, referring to the Conservative Political Action Conference that just concluded. “More news outlets should sue and win.”

Children Among Those Killed by US With Mysterious New Weapon Fired on Iran: Reports

The Precision Strike Missile has never before been used in combat by the US military.


An explosion over a sports hall in Lamerd, Iran, reportedly carried out with a US missile previously not used in combat, is seen on February 28, 2026.
(Photo by Shiraze News via Telegram)

Julia Conley
Mar 30, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

As experts and investigators analyze one of the first strikes carried out in the US-Israeli war on Iran, mounting reports point to a ballistic missile that had never been used before by the US military in combat—but which may have struck a residential area, a sports hall, and a school in the southern city of Lamerd.

Along with being accused of bombing a school in Minab, killing more than 160 children and teachers, the US reportedly attacked several facilities and civilian areas near an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps facility in Lamerd, killing an additional 21 people, including children.

While analysts have found a US Tomahawk cruise missile was used in the Minab attack, munitions experts interviewed by the BBC and The New York Times in recent days said footage of the attacks and images of the targets after they were struck suggest a short-range ballistic missile called a Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) was used to bomb a sports hall, school, and residential neighborhood in Lamerd.

The missiles are newly developed and are designed to detonate just above a target and propel small tungsten pellets into the surrounding area.

As the Times reported, the PrSM is manufactured by Lockheed Martin and has the capability to hit targets at a 400-mile range, “but additional details about the weapon, including its expected accuracy and the quantity of explosives it carries, remain unknown to the public.”

The Times reported that munitions experts had analyzed footage of a weapon in flight over a residential area about 900 feet from the sports hall and school, showing the missile erupting “in a large fireball midair.”

Another video showed an explosion in midair just above the sports hall and nearby school, and photos of the aftermath showed the sites with numerous holes, presumably from the tungsten pellets.

The Times also verified a video that showed a plume of smoke rising in an area close to the other strikes at the same time, and local media reports said a cultural center had been hit in that attack. The target couldn’t be independently verified.

Late last week, the BBC also reported that the PrSM was likely used on residential buildings in Lamerd on the first day of the war.

Experts at the defense intelligence firm Janes and at McKenzie Intelligence told the BBC that the shape, length, and size of the explosions created in verified footage they analyzed indicated the weapons were likely PrSM missiles.

“US Central Command has admitted to using PrSM in strikes from the desert of an unnamed Gulf country against Iran in the early phases of the conflict,” McKenzie Intelligence emphasized.



Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Dan Caine also celebrated the use of the PrSM in a press conference on March 13, reported the BBC, saying the US military had “made history” and carried out attacks with “precision and determination that comes from relentless training and trust in each other and in their weapon systems.”

But a spokesperson for US Central Command on Saturday told the Times that Pentagon officials are “aware of the reports and are looking into them,” and claimed US forces “do not indiscriminately target civilians.”

The US has also not officially taken responsibility for the attack in Minab that happened on the same day as the ones in Lamerd, but fragments of a Tomahawk missile that were found at the site are among the mounting evidence pointing to the Trump administration as the perpetrator.

The sports hall in Lamerd was reportedly being used by a children’s volleyball team at the time of the strike; fourth grader Helma Ahmadizadeh and fifth grader Elham Zaeri were among those killed while at volleyball practice, according to an Iran-based journalist, Negin Bagheri.

Zaeri’s father “described her as an avid volleyball player, who would always turn up to the sports hall 20 to 25 minutes early,” the BBC reported.

The outlet also said the youngest victim of the suspected PrSM strike was two years old.

At Drop Site News, Mahmoud Aslan reported on the attack on the sports hall shortly after it took place, before analysts linked the bombing to the PrSM.

Hossein Gholami told Aslan his 16-year-old daughter, Zahra, had been training in the facility when he “noticed a strange gathering of people at the corner of the street leading to the sports hall.”

“The screaming was rising from a distance,” said Gholami. “A colleague ran toward me, waving his arm, and said in a shaken voice: ‘Zahra, the hall, there has been an explosion.’”

“The continuous screaming of the injured mixed with the sounds of secondary explosions,” said Gholami, whose daughter was killed in the attack. “The ground was covered in debris and shattered glass. It was difficult to move with all the rubble. Ambulances arrived after about twenty minutes, but most of the injured were in critical condition. The smell of blood and burns covered everything.”

“Every time I close my eyes,” he said, “I see her face, her smile, and I hear the sound of the explosion.”

Majority of American Jews Oppose Trump-Netanyahu War on Iran: Polls

“This data is a wake-up call for anyone claiming to speak for the American Jewish community while beating the drums of war,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street.


Local groups and residents protest the US-Israeli war on Iran on March 1, 2026 in Albany, New York.
(Photo by Lori Van Buren/Times Union via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Mar 30, 2026

COMMON DREAMS

Two separate polls released Monday show that a majority of American Jews oppose the US-Israeli war on Iran as the assault drags on into its fifth week, with increasingly dire regional and global consequences.

The surveys were published by the liberal advocacy group J Street and the Jewish Electorate Institute (JEI), a research organization. Both polls of Jewish Americans showed majority opposition—60% and 55%, respectively—to the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s president, said in a statement that “this data is a wake-up call for anyone claiming to speak for the American Jewish community while beating the drums of war.”

“Most American Jews see this war for what it is: A reckless, unforced error by a president who has no clear, achievable goals or an exit strategy,” said Ben-Ami. “This poll proves that the ‘pro-Israel’ position is the pro-peace position—and that means stopping this war before more lives are lost.”

J Street’s poll shows that 77% of Jewish Americans don’t think US President Donald Trump “has a clear plan and mission for the war.” In JEI’s survey, 41% of those who expressed opposition to the Iran war said they were against US military action because “we should not go to war without clear provocation and clear objectives.”

Jim Gerstein, principal at GBAO Strategies—which conducted the poll on behalf of J Street—said that American Jews “have clearly formed views on the war in Iran.”

“A large majority opposes the war, and they do not think Trump has a plan and mission in Iran,” said Gerstein. “Jewish voters hold overwhelmingly negative views of both Trump and Netanyahu—Jewish opposition to the war and those leading it is unmistakable.”

The surveys mark the latest evidence of widespread US public opposition to the war on Iran. Nearly 60% of American voters overall believe that, one month in, the war has “gone too far,” according to a poll released last week, and around 70% oppose a ground invasion of Iran as Trump deploys thousands of troops to the Middle East.

The opposition to the war among Jewish Americans stands in stark contrast to the strong support among Jewish Israelis. The Israel Democracy Institute released a poll on Friday showing that 78% of Jewish Israelis support the assault on Iran.