In Contrast to Trump’s Claim, Iran Has Openly Vowed to Never Have Nuclear Weapons
Hours before the SOTU, Iran’s foreign minister said: “Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon.”
By Sharon Zhang ,
February 25, 2026
President Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address during a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on February 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C.Win McNamee / Getty Images
President Donald Trump continued to push for war with Iran during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, falsely asserting that Iranian officials have not disavowed nuclear weapons development.
Trump repeated the claim that his administration “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, adding that Iranian officials are “terrible people” who are “starting it all over.”
“We wiped it out and they want to start it all over again and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions. We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words, ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon,’” Trump said. “I will never allow [it].”
Iranian officials have repeatedly insisted that their government is only interested in peaceful uses for nuclear enrichment, a stance that they have maintained throughout negotiations.
Indeed, Iran’s foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi reiterated the government’s position just hours before Trump’s speech in a post on social media.
President Donald Trump continued to push for war with Iran during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, falsely asserting that Iranian officials have not disavowed nuclear weapons development.
Trump repeated the claim that his administration “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, adding that Iranian officials are “terrible people” who are “starting it all over.”
“We wiped it out and they want to start it all over again and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions. We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words, ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon,’” Trump said. “I will never allow [it].”
Iranian officials have repeatedly insisted that their government is only interested in peaceful uses for nuclear enrichment, a stance that they have maintained throughout negotiations.
Indeed, Iran’s foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi reiterated the government’s position just hours before Trump’s speech in a post on social media.
The White House cites Iran’s nuclear capabilities — while maintaining their nuclear facilities were “obliterated.” By Sharon Zhang , Truthout February 20, 2026
“Our fundamental convictions are crystal clear: Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon; neither will we Iranians ever forgo our right to harness the dividends of peaceful nuclear technology for our people,” Araghchi wrote. “A deal is within reach, but only if diplomacy is given priority.”
The two countries are slated to have indirect talks in Geneva on Thursday. Trump’s State of the Union comments, however, incensed Iranian officials, who called them “big lies.”
“‘Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth’, is a law of propaganda coined by Nazi Joseph Goebbels. This is now systematically used by the U.S. administration and the war profiteers encircling it, particularly the genocidal Israeli regime, to serve their sinister disinformation & misinformation campaign against the Nation of Iran,” said Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei in a statement on X. “No one should be fooled by these prominent untruths.”
Still, Trump is inching closer to war, and lawmakers appear unwilling to stop him.
Following a classified briefing between party leaders and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday, top Democrats signalled that the administration is ready for war.
“I’m very concerned,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Connecticutt), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “Wars in the Middle East don’t go well for presidents, for the country, and we have not heard articulated a single good reason for why now is the moment to launch yet another war in the Middle East.”
“This is serious, and the administration has to make its case to the American people,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York).
Polls have found that the prospect of a war with Iran is extremely unpopular with the U.S. public. But many Democrats in Congress seem to be in support of a war, and reports say some Democratic leaders are actively pushing against efforts to stop or stymie military action.
Trump’s warmongering remarks earned him a rare bipartisan standing ovation on Tuesday night. It’s unclear how many Democrats stood and clapped, but among them appeared to be even left-leaning figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) as well as the usual suspects like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania).
Analysts say war with Iran would be utterly disastrous like previous U.S. wars in the Middle East. Even Trump’s top military officials, including Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned of the risks, reports said this week. Notably, military officials present at the State of the Union, including Caine, appeared to not have stood for Trump’s nuclear weapon remark, unlike other many lawmakers in the room.
Such warnings have not deterred Democrats. Capital & Empire reported Tuesday that Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are working to prevent a vote on Representatives Ro Khanna (D-California) and Thomas Massie’s (R-Kentucky) war powers resolution. seeking to get members of Congress on the record on war with Iran.
Meanwhile, Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) are only demanding a better justification for war from Trump.
“Part of the concern that I’ve articulated, and will continue to do so, is that the president made the representation that Iran’s nuclear program was completely and totally obliterated last year as a result of actions that the administration has taken,” Jeffries said after the briefing with Rubio. “And so if that, in fact, was true, what is the urgency as of this moment? That’s an open question, and the American people need a real explanation.”
Schumer, a staunch supporter of Israel – which has long sought a U.S.-led war on Iran – has demurred at calls that he take action to prevent a war. When the Trump administration was discussing whether to strike Iran last June, Schumer taunted Trump, calling him “TACO” Trump, referring to an acronym meaning “Trump Always Chickens Out.”
Op-Ed
A War With Iran Would Not Be a One-Off Event But a Disastrous Ongoing Rupture
If Congress cedes its power to stop a war with Iran, it will fully erode any lingering promise of democratic restraint.
By Hanieh Jodat ,
Op-Ed |
As Trump Threatens Iran, We’re On the Brink of a Generational Catastrophe
A US war with Iran would be illegal, immoral, and dangerous. We can still stop it.
By Negin Owliaei , Truthout February 20, 2026
However, with both the House and the Senate under Republican control, the chances of the Iran War Powers Resolution passing remain slim. Senate Republicans Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have all been proponents of striking Iran. While Rubio and Cotton have expressed desire to strike Iran’s nuclear sites in the past, Lindsey Graham has emerged as the strongest MAGA cheerleader for a war with Iran — so much so that he has been urging Trump to ignore the call from his advisors not to strike.
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic lawmakers, Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Rep. Jared Evan Moskowitz of Florida have both expressed their concerns with the Iran War Powers Resolution, saying that it would limit United States military flexibility against Iran. While the U.S. public is overwhelmingly opposed to a war with Iran, a recent poll conducted in January revealed that 50 percent of Trump voters back military “intervention” in Iran over any other foreign target, including Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, China, and Mexico. That number rose to 61 percent among self-described “MAGA Republicans.”
A military strike on Iran would not be a one-off event, but a catastrophic rupture in the region. Iran is not some isolated target on a map. It is a nation of 90 million-plus people with populated cities, hospitals, universities, and families who have suffered repression for over 47 years under the current regime and sanctions that have destroyed Iran’s economy. Infrastructure damages alone from a war would cascade into loss of electricity, water shortages, and severe impacts to medical care.
During the 12-day war, Israeli forces launched explosive weapons that damaged a children’s facility as well as a number of hospitals, health centers, and emergency health buildings, including Farabi hospital in Kermanshah city. Furthermore, the conflict damaged critical aging water pipes in Tehran and other provinces.
It is difficult to imagine what a regional war would do to a population already exhausted by decades of loss, but one thing that is clear is that a war with Iran will permanently scar those who survive it.
Iranians living inside the country have become accustomed to harsh repression over nearly half a century. Every bit of hope for reform and every popular uprising has been crushed and silenced by violent crackdowns from the Iranian state. At the same time, opportunistic neocons, influenced by the United States’s biggest ally in the region, Israel, have sought to co-opt the uprisings. They encourage unrest and issue calls of support for Iranian protestors, while at the same time backing hawkish U.S. policies and pushing lawmakers to take a tougher stance toward Iran. This will only create more repression for Iranians seeking freedoms and human rights and drive the country further into chaos.
At the same time, unilateral sanctions imposed during the first Trump administration have hollowed out the economy, driving the rial to record lows against the dollar in Tehran and turning everyday necessities like food, fuel, and medicine into luxuries families can no longer afford. Iranians overseas with families living in Iran can no longer financially help their loved ones due to sanctions and financial restrictions. It is difficult to imagine what a regional war would do to a population already exhausted by decades of loss, but one thing that is clear is that a war with Iran will permanently scar those who survive it.
A war with Iran will not stop at its borders and will not remain where it is aimed. Such impulsive and reckless military actions never do. The Middle East is an ecosystem of lives, alliances, and fragile balances that will draw in neighboring countries and global powers.
And while the momentum towards a war with Iran accelerates, we must be reminded of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, which accomplished little outside the brutalization of one of the most economically starved countries on earth. Similarly, we must remember the collapse of Iraq’s infrastructure and civil society alongside the imposition of a farcical democracy after the 2003 invasion — a collapse that was fueled in part by years of devastating sanctions that predated the invasion. And, of course, we cannot forget the recent commando abduction and leadership change in Venezuela, which was openly explained by Trump himself as a blatant oil grab. Often, outside powers and hegemonic nations decide what is in the best interest of another nation’s people. They intervene using military force and, when they fail, leave a vacuum of leadership instability and suffering among the general public.
The urgent push toward a military confrontation with Iran may also be shaped in part by domestic unrest in the United States. With an all-time low approval rating, the Trump administration has been pushing attention away from the growing body of evidence emerging from the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. After publicly encouraging Iranians to take to the streets, promising his administration’s full backing and support, Trump may have also backed himself into a corner, one he has been ushered toward thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been pushing for a war with Iran for decades.
Some argue that now, while the Iranian state might seem particularly vulnerable, is the time to strike. This approach overlooks the reality that Iran is deeply embedded in a global power alliance that includes Russia and China, meaning any attempt at forced regime change would not occur in isolation.
In response to the United States military buildup in the region, Iran and Russia have carried out joint military drills, conducting rescue operations and deploying missile-launching warships, special operations teams, helicopters, and at least one Iranian destroyer. Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow have carried out joint exercises for several years, but the latest military exercise was in direct response to U.S. military pressure. In addition to joint drills, Iran has briefly closed the Strait of Hormuz, which is the waterway separating Oman and Iran and is crucial for transporting global oil supplies in the region.
Rather than a one-off strike or a clean operation, a war with Iran would almost certainly widen conflict in the region and produce consequences far beyond what could be intended or repaired.
This is why the War Powers Resolution exists, not as a symbolic gesture but as a bulwark to slow the rush towards catastrophe. The framers of the Constitution understood what modern politicians seem to ignore: that war is too consequential to be left in the hands of one person, one branch of the government, or an executive order. The power to start a war with another country was placed in the hands of Congress to ensure transparency, force dialogue, and demand accountability.
If Congress fails to take action now, before Trump strikes the first town, before the first city loses power and water, before a mother loses a child, then the promise of democratic restraint becomes hollow and meaningless.
Even though some Iranians may hope for war as the means to collapse a regime that has trapped them for decades, Iran is not a single voice. Iran is a country of over 90 million people who want their basic needs to be met, and even in their desperation no foreign intervention or strike could deliver the revolution they hoped for. History has shown time and time again that wars imposed from without will destroy hospitals, schools, and other vital infrastructure before the bombs ever reach those in power.
This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.
Hanieh Jodat
Hanieh Jodat is a political strategist and a key strategist with Defuse Nuclear War, an initiative of RootsAction. She also serves as the Chair of Progressive Democrats of America – Middle East Alliances, focusing on fostering dialogue and progressive policies on critical global issues.
A War With Iran Would Not Be a One-Off Event But a Disastrous Ongoing Rupture
If Congress cedes its power to stop a war with Iran, it will fully erode any lingering promise of democratic restraint.
By Hanieh Jodat ,
February 24, 2026
A group of National Guardsmen walk past the Win Without War Billboard Truck displaying the message "No War With Iran" in front of the U.S. Capitol on February 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C.Jemal Countess / Getty Images for Win Without War
As the U.S. slowly continues its brokered negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and ballistic missiles, it is also expanding its military posture across the Middle East — amounting to the biggest military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. took place in Geneva on February 17 with little progress and plenty of details left to discuss. According to U.S. officials, the Islamic Republic offered to come back within two weeks with a proposal which addresses some core issues and gaps in the positions by both parties. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s actions play a different tune. On February 19, Trump announced he would give Iran 10 to 15 days to reach a deal, otherwise the U.S. claims to be fully prepared to take military action, the consequences of which could lead to a regional catastrophe. The next talks are set to take place on February 26.
Ahead of those talks, Donald Trump has deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, which is set to join the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea. The United States has also significantly increased air power in the Middle East; according to open-source intelligence analysts and flight-tracking data, over 120 U.S. aircraft have deployed to the region. With each warship it repositions, each military personnel it places on alert, and all of the air power it has amassed in the region, the U.S. sends a message that diplomacy may no longer be on the table.
Both U.S. officials and international partners have voiced concern over the likelihood of a war with Iran. The United Kingdom has reportedly said that the United States would not be allowed to use British airbases, including Diego Garcia and Royal Air Force Fairford, for strikes against Iran, citing concerns that such action would violate international law.
Meanwhile, in Congress, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie and California Democrat Ro Khanna have joined forces again to push a war powers resolution. The 1973 War Powers Act grants Congress the authority to check President Trump’s ability and power to enter an armed conflict without legislative approval.
As the U.S. slowly continues its brokered negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and ballistic missiles, it is also expanding its military posture across the Middle East — amounting to the biggest military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. took place in Geneva on February 17 with little progress and plenty of details left to discuss. According to U.S. officials, the Islamic Republic offered to come back within two weeks with a proposal which addresses some core issues and gaps in the positions by both parties. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s actions play a different tune. On February 19, Trump announced he would give Iran 10 to 15 days to reach a deal, otherwise the U.S. claims to be fully prepared to take military action, the consequences of which could lead to a regional catastrophe. The next talks are set to take place on February 26.
Ahead of those talks, Donald Trump has deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, which is set to join the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea. The United States has also significantly increased air power in the Middle East; according to open-source intelligence analysts and flight-tracking data, over 120 U.S. aircraft have deployed to the region. With each warship it repositions, each military personnel it places on alert, and all of the air power it has amassed in the region, the U.S. sends a message that diplomacy may no longer be on the table.
Both U.S. officials and international partners have voiced concern over the likelihood of a war with Iran. The United Kingdom has reportedly said that the United States would not be allowed to use British airbases, including Diego Garcia and Royal Air Force Fairford, for strikes against Iran, citing concerns that such action would violate international law.
Meanwhile, in Congress, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie and California Democrat Ro Khanna have joined forces again to push a war powers resolution. The 1973 War Powers Act grants Congress the authority to check President Trump’s ability and power to enter an armed conflict without legislative approval.
Op-Ed |
As Trump Threatens Iran, We’re On the Brink of a Generational Catastrophe
A US war with Iran would be illegal, immoral, and dangerous. We can still stop it.
By Negin Owliaei , Truthout February 20, 2026
However, with both the House and the Senate under Republican control, the chances of the Iran War Powers Resolution passing remain slim. Senate Republicans Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have all been proponents of striking Iran. While Rubio and Cotton have expressed desire to strike Iran’s nuclear sites in the past, Lindsey Graham has emerged as the strongest MAGA cheerleader for a war with Iran — so much so that he has been urging Trump to ignore the call from his advisors not to strike.
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic lawmakers, Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Rep. Jared Evan Moskowitz of Florida have both expressed their concerns with the Iran War Powers Resolution, saying that it would limit United States military flexibility against Iran. While the U.S. public is overwhelmingly opposed to a war with Iran, a recent poll conducted in January revealed that 50 percent of Trump voters back military “intervention” in Iran over any other foreign target, including Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, China, and Mexico. That number rose to 61 percent among self-described “MAGA Republicans.”
A military strike on Iran would not be a one-off event, but a catastrophic rupture in the region. Iran is not some isolated target on a map. It is a nation of 90 million-plus people with populated cities, hospitals, universities, and families who have suffered repression for over 47 years under the current regime and sanctions that have destroyed Iran’s economy. Infrastructure damages alone from a war would cascade into loss of electricity, water shortages, and severe impacts to medical care.
During the 12-day war, Israeli forces launched explosive weapons that damaged a children’s facility as well as a number of hospitals, health centers, and emergency health buildings, including Farabi hospital in Kermanshah city. Furthermore, the conflict damaged critical aging water pipes in Tehran and other provinces.
It is difficult to imagine what a regional war would do to a population already exhausted by decades of loss, but one thing that is clear is that a war with Iran will permanently scar those who survive it.
Iranians living inside the country have become accustomed to harsh repression over nearly half a century. Every bit of hope for reform and every popular uprising has been crushed and silenced by violent crackdowns from the Iranian state. At the same time, opportunistic neocons, influenced by the United States’s biggest ally in the region, Israel, have sought to co-opt the uprisings. They encourage unrest and issue calls of support for Iranian protestors, while at the same time backing hawkish U.S. policies and pushing lawmakers to take a tougher stance toward Iran. This will only create more repression for Iranians seeking freedoms and human rights and drive the country further into chaos.
At the same time, unilateral sanctions imposed during the first Trump administration have hollowed out the economy, driving the rial to record lows against the dollar in Tehran and turning everyday necessities like food, fuel, and medicine into luxuries families can no longer afford. Iranians overseas with families living in Iran can no longer financially help their loved ones due to sanctions and financial restrictions. It is difficult to imagine what a regional war would do to a population already exhausted by decades of loss, but one thing that is clear is that a war with Iran will permanently scar those who survive it.
A war with Iran will not stop at its borders and will not remain where it is aimed. Such impulsive and reckless military actions never do. The Middle East is an ecosystem of lives, alliances, and fragile balances that will draw in neighboring countries and global powers.
And while the momentum towards a war with Iran accelerates, we must be reminded of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, which accomplished little outside the brutalization of one of the most economically starved countries on earth. Similarly, we must remember the collapse of Iraq’s infrastructure and civil society alongside the imposition of a farcical democracy after the 2003 invasion — a collapse that was fueled in part by years of devastating sanctions that predated the invasion. And, of course, we cannot forget the recent commando abduction and leadership change in Venezuela, which was openly explained by Trump himself as a blatant oil grab. Often, outside powers and hegemonic nations decide what is in the best interest of another nation’s people. They intervene using military force and, when they fail, leave a vacuum of leadership instability and suffering among the general public.
The urgent push toward a military confrontation with Iran may also be shaped in part by domestic unrest in the United States. With an all-time low approval rating, the Trump administration has been pushing attention away from the growing body of evidence emerging from the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. After publicly encouraging Iranians to take to the streets, promising his administration’s full backing and support, Trump may have also backed himself into a corner, one he has been ushered toward thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been pushing for a war with Iran for decades.
Some argue that now, while the Iranian state might seem particularly vulnerable, is the time to strike. This approach overlooks the reality that Iran is deeply embedded in a global power alliance that includes Russia and China, meaning any attempt at forced regime change would not occur in isolation.
In response to the United States military buildup in the region, Iran and Russia have carried out joint military drills, conducting rescue operations and deploying missile-launching warships, special operations teams, helicopters, and at least one Iranian destroyer. Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow have carried out joint exercises for several years, but the latest military exercise was in direct response to U.S. military pressure. In addition to joint drills, Iran has briefly closed the Strait of Hormuz, which is the waterway separating Oman and Iran and is crucial for transporting global oil supplies in the region.
Rather than a one-off strike or a clean operation, a war with Iran would almost certainly widen conflict in the region and produce consequences far beyond what could be intended or repaired.
This is why the War Powers Resolution exists, not as a symbolic gesture but as a bulwark to slow the rush towards catastrophe. The framers of the Constitution understood what modern politicians seem to ignore: that war is too consequential to be left in the hands of one person, one branch of the government, or an executive order. The power to start a war with another country was placed in the hands of Congress to ensure transparency, force dialogue, and demand accountability.
If Congress fails to take action now, before Trump strikes the first town, before the first city loses power and water, before a mother loses a child, then the promise of democratic restraint becomes hollow and meaningless.
Even though some Iranians may hope for war as the means to collapse a regime that has trapped them for decades, Iran is not a single voice. Iran is a country of over 90 million people who want their basic needs to be met, and even in their desperation no foreign intervention or strike could deliver the revolution they hoped for. History has shown time and time again that wars imposed from without will destroy hospitals, schools, and other vital infrastructure before the bombs ever reach those in power.
This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.
Hanieh Jodat
Hanieh Jodat is a political strategist and a key strategist with Defuse Nuclear War, an initiative of RootsAction. She also serves as the Chair of Progressive Democrats of America – Middle East Alliances, focusing on fostering dialogue and progressive policies on critical global issues.
“The stakes are clear,” said the National Iranian American Council. “There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine speaks during a press conference with US President Donald Trump on January 3, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida.
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Jake Johnson
Feb 24, 2026
COMMMON DREAMS
President Donald Trump admitted Monday that a US assault on Iran would be disastrous for the Middle East nation’s people as he considers options for a military attack, reportedly drawing private warnings from the United States’ top general.
In a Truth Social post, Trump pushed back against reports that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has voiced concerns about the potentially massive risks of attacking Iran, a country of more than 90 million people. Trump has previously claimed that Caine believed any military conflict with Iran would be “something easily won.”
“He has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about, he only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack,” Trump wrote of Caine in his Monday post.
The US president—who blew up a landmark diplomatic agreement with Iran during his first term—added that if a new deal with the Iranian government doesn’t materialize, “it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them.”
Trump’s acknowledgment that a US military assault would likely be devastating for ordinary Iranians runs counter to the narrative pushed by supporters of war, who claim conflict and regime change is necessary to aid Iran’s population.
“The stakes are clear,” the National Iranian American Council, an advocacy organization that has vocally opposed a US attack on Iran, wrote late Monday. “President Trump himself says that war with Iran will mean a ‘very bad day’ for Iran and ‘very sadly, its people.’ There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out.”
Lawmakers in the US House of Representatives are expected to vote this week on a resolution aimed at preventing war with Iran without congressional authorization, but the measure stands little chance of reaching Trump’s desk.
The president, meanwhile, has shown no indication that he intends to seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. One poll conducted earlier this month showed that just 21% of Americans would support the Trump administration “initiating an attack on Iran.”
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump is considering an “initial targeted US attack” on Iran followed by “a much bigger attack in the coming months” if the nation’s government doesn’t capitulate to Washington’s demands, principally that Iran abandon its nuclear program. Negotiators from the US and Iran are scheduled to meet in Geneva later this week.
“Behind the scenes, a new proposal is being considered by both sides that could create an off-ramp to military conflict: a very limited nuclear enrichment program that Iran could carry out solely for purposes of medical research and treatments,” the Times reported. “It is unclear whether either side would agree. But the last-minute proposal comes as two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of fighter jets, bombers,k and refueling aircraft are now massing within striking distance of Iran.”
Multiple outlets reported Monday that Caine, the top US general, has offered warnings about the potential risks of attacking Iran. According to the Washington Post, Caine voiced concerns at a recent White House meeting that “any major operation against Iran will face challenges because the US munitions stockpile has been significantly depleted by Washington’s ongoing defense of Israel and support for Ukraine.”
The Trump administration’s march to war with Iran has also drawn significant outside opposition.
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Monday that “like the June 2025 bombings that failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, another US strike would be an illegal act of war.”
“As with his false claims that last year’s attack had ‘completely and totally obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear capacity, the president has now dropped the pretense that military intervention would be aimed at protecting Iranian protestors who bravely faced a deadly crackdown to demonstrate against the regime’s many human rights violations,” said Duss.
“With Trump sending mixed signals over the timing and scope of possible strikes—and given his record of attacking even when active diplomacy is taking place—Congress must act swiftly to make clear that the president does not have its authorization for the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iran,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment