As Trump Marches US Toward Iran War, Critics Ask: Where’s the ‘Pushback’ From Dems and Media?
“It’s astonishing that we’re building up for a significant military clash, and Congress isn’t involved, no real case is being made to the public, and the average American has no clue.”
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) depart a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on January 8, 2026.
(Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Stephen Prager
Feb 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
Amid reports that President Donald Trump is pushing the US toward a “massive” war in Iran, critics have found themselves shocked by the lack of “pushback” from top Democrats and mainstream media institutions.
Barak Ravid reported for Axios on Wednesday that, with a deal between the US and Iran appearing increasingly out of sight, “the Trump administration is closer to a major war in the Middle East than most Americans realize” and “It could begin very soon.”
Sources told the outlet that “A US military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month’s pinpoint operation in Venezuela.”
“Such a war would have a dramatic influence on the entire region and major implications for the remaining three years of the Trump presidency,” Ravid wrote.
However, with Congress on recess and the media largely distracted by a whirlwind of other issues, he noted, “there is little public debate about what could be the most consequential US military intervention in the Middle East in at least a decade.”
As columnist Adam Johnson pointed out on social media, Trump’s sabre-rattling toward Iran was underway well before Congress left town.
Despite this, Johnson said, the “two most powerful Democrats in the country,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), “have once again not leveled a single word of substantive pushback,” as was the case when Trump conducted strikes against Iran over the summer.
He said the top Democrats have only acknowledged Trump’s threats “when asked by reporters” and have made only “process criticisms” rather than criticizing the merits of the war itself.
Last month, as Trump threatened to carry out massive strikes in retaliation for Iran’s brutalization of protesters, Schumer limited his criticism to the fact that Trump had not consulted Congress.
“It has to be debated by Congress. Something like that, the War Powers Act, the Constitution, requires a discussion in Congress. We’ve had no reach-out from the administration at this point,” he told reporters.
More recently, Jeffries—a member of Congress who is briefed on national security matters—was asked on CBS’s Face the Nation what he knew about the war plans or what he would want to know.
He did not answer that question, but vaguely lamented that Trump “has been slow to provide information... to the Gang of Eight members of Congress” and “hasn’t provided a significant amount of information to Congress in general.”
“When it comes to sanctions, perma-war, and bombings, we do not have an opposition party,” Johnson said. “We have sleepy AIPAC-funded hall monitors paid to get wedgies and vaguely object after the craters are smoking in the ground.”
New York Times columnist David French agreed: “It’s astonishing that we’re building up for a significant military clash, and Congress isn’t involved, no real case is being made to the public, and the average American has no clue. If this gets serious, it will be a shock for lots of people.”
There is little hunger in the American public for a war with Iran. A YouGov survey from early February found that 48% said they strongly or somewhat opposed military action in Iran, compared with just 28% who supported it and 24% who weren’t sure.
Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said in an interview with Democracy Now! on Wednesday that, despite the public’s broadly anti-interventionist attitudes, “their voices are more or less not being heard in the mainstream media.”
“We’re seeing exactly what we saw during the Iraq War, in which a large number of pro-intervention Iraqi voices were paraded through mainstream media in order to give the impression that not only is this something that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi society, but also that this is the morally right thing to do,” Parsi said.
Drop Site News founder Ryan Grim said that when compared with the invasion of Iraq, which was built up over the course of more than a year through persistent propaganda to get the public on board, the Trump administration’s effort to sell a war with Iran is laughable.
“We don’t even get the respect of being lied into war anymore,” he said. “He’s just going to do it.”
“It’s astonishing that we’re building up for a significant military clash, and Congress isn’t involved, no real case is being made to the public, and the average American has no clue.”
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) depart a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on January 8, 2026.
(Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Stephen Prager
Feb 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
Amid reports that President Donald Trump is pushing the US toward a “massive” war in Iran, critics have found themselves shocked by the lack of “pushback” from top Democrats and mainstream media institutions.
Barak Ravid reported for Axios on Wednesday that, with a deal between the US and Iran appearing increasingly out of sight, “the Trump administration is closer to a major war in the Middle East than most Americans realize” and “It could begin very soon.”
‘The Tankers Just Keep Coming’: US Military Movements Spike Fears of Imminent Attack on Iran
US Military Told Mideast Ally That Trump Attack on Iran is ‘Imminent’: Report
Sources told the outlet that “A US military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month’s pinpoint operation in Venezuela.”
“Such a war would have a dramatic influence on the entire region and major implications for the remaining three years of the Trump presidency,” Ravid wrote.
However, with Congress on recess and the media largely distracted by a whirlwind of other issues, he noted, “there is little public debate about what could be the most consequential US military intervention in the Middle East in at least a decade.”
As columnist Adam Johnson pointed out on social media, Trump’s sabre-rattling toward Iran was underway well before Congress left town.
Despite this, Johnson said, the “two most powerful Democrats in the country,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), “have once again not leveled a single word of substantive pushback,” as was the case when Trump conducted strikes against Iran over the summer.
He said the top Democrats have only acknowledged Trump’s threats “when asked by reporters” and have made only “process criticisms” rather than criticizing the merits of the war itself.
Last month, as Trump threatened to carry out massive strikes in retaliation for Iran’s brutalization of protesters, Schumer limited his criticism to the fact that Trump had not consulted Congress.
“It has to be debated by Congress. Something like that, the War Powers Act, the Constitution, requires a discussion in Congress. We’ve had no reach-out from the administration at this point,” he told reporters.
More recently, Jeffries—a member of Congress who is briefed on national security matters—was asked on CBS’s Face the Nation what he knew about the war plans or what he would want to know.
He did not answer that question, but vaguely lamented that Trump “has been slow to provide information... to the Gang of Eight members of Congress” and “hasn’t provided a significant amount of information to Congress in general.”
“When it comes to sanctions, perma-war, and bombings, we do not have an opposition party,” Johnson said. “We have sleepy AIPAC-funded hall monitors paid to get wedgies and vaguely object after the craters are smoking in the ground.”
New York Times columnist David French agreed: “It’s astonishing that we’re building up for a significant military clash, and Congress isn’t involved, no real case is being made to the public, and the average American has no clue. If this gets serious, it will be a shock for lots of people.”
There is little hunger in the American public for a war with Iran. A YouGov survey from early February found that 48% said they strongly or somewhat opposed military action in Iran, compared with just 28% who supported it and 24% who weren’t sure.
Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said in an interview with Democracy Now! on Wednesday that, despite the public’s broadly anti-interventionist attitudes, “their voices are more or less not being heard in the mainstream media.”
“We’re seeing exactly what we saw during the Iraq War, in which a large number of pro-intervention Iraqi voices were paraded through mainstream media in order to give the impression that not only is this something that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi society, but also that this is the morally right thing to do,” Parsi said.
Drop Site News founder Ryan Grim said that when compared with the invasion of Iraq, which was built up over the course of more than a year through persistent propaganda to get the public on board, the Trump administration’s effort to sell a war with Iran is laughable.
“We don’t even get the respect of being lied into war anymore,” he said. “He’s just going to do it.”
Trump inches close to 'pulling the trigger' on 'full-fledged war': 'Could begin very soon'
Alexander Willis
February 18, 2026
Trump's conspiratorial 2011 Iran warning resurfaces as war reports swirlAlexander Willis
February 18, 2026
RAW STORY
As a fleet of U.S. warships barrel toward Iran, the Trump administration appears poised to “pull the trigger” on a “full-fledged war” at any moment, and may do so sooner than “most Americans realize,” Axios reported Wednesday.
“Trump's military and rhetorical buildups make it hard for him to back down without major concessions from Iran on its nuclear program,” writes Axios’ Mike Allen in the outlet’s report Wednesday.
“It's not in Trump's nature, and his advisers don't view the deployment of all that hardware as a bluff. With Trump, anything can happen. But all signs point to him pulling the trigger if talks fail.”
The Trump administration met with Iranian officials in Geneva, Switzerland on Tuesday in the hopes of reaching a deal to avoid further escalations, but according to Vice President JD Vance, those talks stalled due to Iranian officials refusing to “acknowledge” some of President Donald Trump’s “red lines.”
Now, according to sources who spoke with Axios on the condition of anonymity, the United States could be engaged in “a major war in the Middle East,” and “very soon,” Axios reported.
Both the USS Gerald Ford and the USS Abraham Lincoln – two massive aircraft carriers that each carry dozens of aircraft and crews of up to 5,690 – are currently near Iran, BBC Verify and AntiWar.com have reported.
With the aircraft carriers are dozens of warships and hundreds of fighter jets. And, according to Axios, more than 150 military cargo flights have “moved weapons systems and ammunition” to the region. Within the past 24 hours as of Wednesday morning, the Trump administration has also moved 50 additional fighter jets to the region.
As a fleet of U.S. warships barrel toward Iran, the Trump administration appears poised to “pull the trigger” on a “full-fledged war” at any moment, and may do so sooner than “most Americans realize,” Axios reported Wednesday.
“Trump's military and rhetorical buildups make it hard for him to back down without major concessions from Iran on its nuclear program,” writes Axios’ Mike Allen in the outlet’s report Wednesday.
“It's not in Trump's nature, and his advisers don't view the deployment of all that hardware as a bluff. With Trump, anything can happen. But all signs point to him pulling the trigger if talks fail.”
The Trump administration met with Iranian officials in Geneva, Switzerland on Tuesday in the hopes of reaching a deal to avoid further escalations, but according to Vice President JD Vance, those talks stalled due to Iranian officials refusing to “acknowledge” some of President Donald Trump’s “red lines.”
Now, according to sources who spoke with Axios on the condition of anonymity, the United States could be engaged in “a major war in the Middle East,” and “very soon,” Axios reported.
Both the USS Gerald Ford and the USS Abraham Lincoln – two massive aircraft carriers that each carry dozens of aircraft and crews of up to 5,690 – are currently near Iran, BBC Verify and AntiWar.com have reported.
With the aircraft carriers are dozens of warships and hundreds of fighter jets. And, according to Axios, more than 150 military cargo flights have “moved weapons systems and ammunition” to the region. Within the past 24 hours as of Wednesday morning, the Trump administration has also moved 50 additional fighter jets to the region.
Robert Davis
February 18, 2026
RAW STORY
U.S. President Donald Trump walks to deliver an address to the nation at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool
One of President Donald Trump's old warnings about Iran resurfaced on Wednesday as reports indicate that he is pondering war with the country
In 2011, Trump claimed that then-President Barack Obama would strike Iran to ensure he was elected for a second term. The post at the time was quite controversial, as the former president was facing a stiff re-election campaign while the country was still recovering from the Great Recession.
That post was retweeted on Wednesday, at a time when Axios reported that Trump had deployed more than 150 cargo flights to move weapons and ammunition into the region. The U.S. military has also sent 50 fighter jets, including F-35s, F-22s, and F-16s, to the area.
Last year, the Trump administration conducted a secret strike against three of Iran's nuclear facilities. Trump claimed afterwards that the facilities were "totally destroyed," although some analysts disagreed with that claim.
People in Trump's orbit, like conservative talk show host Mark Levin, have been pushing the president to strike Iran again.
The president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and special envoy Steve Witkoff held negotiations with Iranian representatives on Tuesday, Axios reported. U.S. officials told the outlet that they are unconvinced that the two countries can close the "gaps" that exist between them.
U.S. President Donald Trump walks to deliver an address to the nation at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool
One of President Donald Trump's old warnings about Iran resurfaced on Wednesday as reports indicate that he is pondering war with the country
In 2011, Trump claimed that then-President Barack Obama would strike Iran to ensure he was elected for a second term. The post at the time was quite controversial, as the former president was facing a stiff re-election campaign while the country was still recovering from the Great Recession.
That post was retweeted on Wednesday, at a time when Axios reported that Trump had deployed more than 150 cargo flights to move weapons and ammunition into the region. The U.S. military has also sent 50 fighter jets, including F-35s, F-22s, and F-16s, to the area.
Last year, the Trump administration conducted a secret strike against three of Iran's nuclear facilities. Trump claimed afterwards that the facilities were "totally destroyed," although some analysts disagreed with that claim.
People in Trump's orbit, like conservative talk show host Mark Levin, have been pushing the president to strike Iran again.
The president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and special envoy Steve Witkoff held negotiations with Iranian representatives on Tuesday, Axios reported. U.S. officials told the outlet that they are unconvinced that the two countries can close the "gaps" that exist between them.
Far-right influencer melts down over Trump's push to war with Iran: 'Completely betrayed!'
Nicole Charky-Chami
February 18, 2026
Nicole Charky-Chami
February 18, 2026
RAW STORY
Far-right white nationalist and Nazi sympathizer Nick Fuentes lost it on Wednesday amid growing national concern that America is moving closer to war with Iran.
Fuentes wrote on X about what he expected to happen if a war were to break out between the U.S. and Iran under President Donald Trump.
"If Trump brings us to war in Iran you can forget about 2026 and you can forget about a ticket with Vance or Rubio in 2028. This is literally Iraq 2.0. The GOP has utterly and completely betrayed America First," he wrote.
As military movement heightens in the Arabian Sea and more American air defense are repositioned closer to the Middle East, a Trump administration adviser reportedly told Axios, “I think there is 90% chance we see kinetic action."
MAGA has been divided over the Trump administration's international focus throughout the first year of Trump's second term. Fuentes' most recent comment signifies his growing disdain over the Trump administration's pivot to international security versus the MAGA coalition's central push for "America First" policies.
Far-right white nationalist and Nazi sympathizer Nick Fuentes lost it on Wednesday amid growing national concern that America is moving closer to war with Iran.
Fuentes wrote on X about what he expected to happen if a war were to break out between the U.S. and Iran under President Donald Trump.
"If Trump brings us to war in Iran you can forget about 2026 and you can forget about a ticket with Vance or Rubio in 2028. This is literally Iraq 2.0. The GOP has utterly and completely betrayed America First," he wrote.
As military movement heightens in the Arabian Sea and more American air defense are repositioned closer to the Middle East, a Trump administration adviser reportedly told Axios, “I think there is 90% chance we see kinetic action."
MAGA has been divided over the Trump administration's international focus throughout the first year of Trump's second term. Fuentes' most recent comment signifies his growing disdain over the Trump administration's pivot to international security versus the MAGA coalition's central push for "America First" policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment