Bob Sheak, March 5, 2026
Arlene Sheak edited
Iran did not threaten U.S.
The current US war on Iran is not the result of an attack on our country or even a threat of such a war. It is a war waged by Trump and his government by choice and based on questionable assumptions about Iran’s intentions. The war also conflicts with Trump’s view of himself as a peace president.
Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondents for The New York Times, writes on how during his presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2024, Trump promised to focus on “America First” and to avoid foreign wars (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/us/politics/trump-peace-president-war.html). Trump dubbed himself “a peace president.” In the presidential race of 2024, “he boasted of starting ‘no new wars’ in his first presidential term. He asserted that if Kamala Harris won, she would send the “sons and daughters” of Americans “to go fight for a war in a country that you’ve never heard of.”
“Barely a year later,” Baker writes, “Mr. Trump is racing to topple foreign regimes, and is sending American sons and daughters to wage another war in the Middle East. The self-declared president of peace has chosen to become the president of warafter all, unleashing the full power of the U.S. military in Iran with the explicit goal of toppling its government.” The attack is now on its sixth day with no end in sight.
Baker continues, “The bombardment of Iran on Saturday was the ninth time he had ordered the military into action in his second term, even as he has decapitated the government of Venezuela and threatened to overthrow Cuba’s dictator.
“In his middle-of-the-night social media video announcing the opening of this new war, Mr. Trump laid out a bill of particulars against Iran going back nearly half a century, including its pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, its support for terrorist groups that attacked Americans and allies, the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the recent massacre of Iranian protesters. But he never explained why those aggressions required action now rather than earlier, or why his thinking evidently changed.” He also failed to offer a plan on how long he expected the war to last, what the costs will be, how it will wind up, and said Americans in Iran and the region will have to find ways to safety themselves. Given the absence of air flights, many have few options to leave.
Baker points out that Trump did call for regime change, “calling on Iranians to overthrow their leaders. ‘When we are finished, take over your government,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘It will be yours to take.’ He repeated this in a social media post Saturday afternoon announcing that the strike had killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader — ‘one of the most evil people in History,
as the president put it.”
Just how Iranians should go about taking over their country was left unclear. Mr. Trump wrote that police and revolutionary guard forces should “peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves” — a remarkable notion suggesting that Iranian security officials would somehow team up with the same people they were gunning down in the streets just weeks ago.”
“His public posture, however, has veered wildly over the past year,” Baker notes. “One moment, he presents himself as a historic peacemaker, forming a so-called Board of Peace and griping that he has not won the Nobel Peace Prize while claiming, inaccurately, that he has ended eight wars — including one with Iran. The next moment, he threatens to seize Greenland, take back the Panama Canal, strangle Cuba and even go after Colombia’s president as he did Venezuela’s.”
———-
The Idea That Trump Is Antiwar Was Always Delusional
Michelle Goldberg addresses this point
(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/opinion/trump-iran-antiwar.html).
She argues that it is ludicrous to ever think of Trump as a promoter of peace.
She writes that “what Trump has always hated isn’t conflict but sacrifice, the notion that American power should ever be constrained by a veneer of idealism or care for global opinion.” His real view is conveyed by what he said at a 2025 rally:
“I’m really good at war. I love war, in a certain way, but only when we win.” One of his chief complaints about the Iraq war, let’s remember, was that George W. Bush had failed to take Iraq’s oil.”
“Trump’s first term,” Goldberg writes, “was marked by a huge surge in drone strikes: According to the BBC, he ordered 2,243 in his first two years in office, compared with 1,878 in Barack Obama’s eight years. He reversed the longstanding American policy of treating Israel’s settlement building as illegitimate under international law, one of many sops to the American right.
“It’s true,” Goldber writes, “that Trump did not start any new wars, though, in retrospect, that seems like luck as much as design. In 2020, when Trump ordered a drone strike on Iran’s top military commander, Qassim Suleimani, The Washington Post reported that the decision “came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon’s longstanding concerns about escalation.” If that assassination didn’t spiral into a wider conflict, it may well have been a result of Iranian restraint, with some reporting suggesting that Iran provided America advance warning of its retaliatory strikes in Iraq.
“The lesson Trump learned from his first term, it seems, is that there’s no real cost to his belligerence, and so he has ratcheted it up. Trump, according to Axios, “authorized more individual airstrikes in 2025 than President Biden did in four years.” Given the lack of meaningful resistance he faced from his base, it’s not surprising that he has become even more reckless. Across many different realms, Trump’s pattern is basically the same: He goes as far as he can until someone stops him.
———-
This Is an Unnecessary, Unauthorized, and Unconstitutional War
John Nichols contends rightly that the Trump’s Iran War “is an unnecessary, unauthorized, and Unconstitutional War,” March 2, 2026
Nichols reminds us that Congress, not the president, has “primacy over matters of war and peace” under the War Powers Act.
He reports that on Saturday morning, after President Trump launched an unnecessary, unauthorized, and unconstitutional attack on Iran, US Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie did their jobs as members of Congress.
The California Democrat and the Kentucky Republican had already cosponsored a War Powers Act resolution in hopes of thwarting a rush to war with Iran. Now the war was on. Bombs were dropping, missiles flying, and people dying. So the bipartisan team demanded that Congress step up. Khanna immediately announced, “Trump has launched an illegal regime change war in Iran with American lives at risk. Congress must convene on Monday to vote on US Rep. Thomas Massie[’s] & my [War Powers Resolution] to stop this.”
Seeking to force a congressional debate about the war—as Khanna and Massie are doing in the House, and as Tim Kaine (D-VA) has proposed in the Senate—is a vital first step in pushing back against Trump.
It won’t be easy. Despite a notable level of congressional opposition to Trump’s new war, efforts to establish even the most basic counterbalances to presidential war making will face overwhelming odds. House Speaker Mike Johnson, the Louisiana Republican who serves as Trump’s enforcer in the chamber, will do everything in his power to thwart any meaningful effort to renew the constitutionally mandated role of Congress as the arbiter of matters of war and peace. The same goes for the president.
The issue did belatedly come of a vote, as reported by Reuters (https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-senate-backs-trump-iran-014335375.html).
“US Senate Republicans backed President Donald Trump’s military campaign against Iran on Wednesday, voting to block a bipartisan resolution aiming to stop the air war and require that any hostilities against Iran be authorized by Congress.
“The Senate voted 53 to 47 against advancing the resolution, largely along party lines, with all but one Republican voting against the procedural motion and all but one Democrat supporting it.
Nichols continues. The latest effort by Democrats and a few Republicans to rein in President Donald Trump‘s repeated foreign troop deployments, the war powers resolution was described by sponsors as a bid to take back Congress’s responsibility to declare war, as spelled out in the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution plainly reads, “The Congress shall have Power…to declare War.”
Senate Republican, in the majority, insisted that Trump’s action was legal and within his right as commander in chief to protect the United States by ordering limited strikes. They accused supporters of the resolution of endangering US forces.
Nichols questions their rationale. “There’s no indication that there’s any sort of circumstance that would give the President the unilateral authority to order military action. It’s true that presidents have some inherent authority to deploy the military as Commander in Chief, but that’s really limited to true emergency circumstances where there is an attack underway that needs to be repelled, or maybe an extremely clear imminent attack. But there’s no suggestion that that’s the case today—that would make the strikes illegal.”
———-
Trump and his Secretary of State offer rationales for why they started this war and will continue it for as long as “it takes.”
Reuters journalists Nandita Bose, Humeyra Pamuk and Simon Lewis report on attempts by Trump and the Secretary of “War” to justify the Iran war (https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-he-ordered-iran-strikes-thwart-tehrans-missile-program-2026-03-02) Consider how U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained it.
“The president made the very wise decision — we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio said on Monday.” All of this is unsubstantiated.
Reuters – “We’re already substantially ahead of our time projections. But whatever the time is, it’s okay. Whatever it takes,” Trump said at the White House on Monday, during his first public event since the conflict began. — He made no mention of regime change, saying the fight was needed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, which Tehran denies seeking, and to thwart its long-range ballistic missile program.”
The regime change rationale came a little later.
———-
Senate votes in support of Trump’s war
Democracy Now (https://www.democracynow.org/2026/3/5/headlines)
The United States Senate rejected a resolution Wednesday that would have directed the removal of U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran, as Iran’s government said the death toll from joint U.S.-Israeli attacks passed 1,200. Fifty-two Republicans were joined by Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman on a procedural vote opposing the war powers resolution. This is Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker.
Sen. Roger Wicker: “I’ll vote no on the pending resolution. President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct.”
Forty-four Democrats and two independents voted to advance the war powers resolution, joined by Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. That fell short of the 51 votes needed to pass.”
———-
Some effects of U.S. bombing
#1 – Many Americans in the region are stranded (https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/us-iran-war-israel-strikes-tehren-lebanon-day-5-al-udeid-targeted).
“The State Department said Wednesday night that a charter flight of American citizens had departed from the Middle East and was headed to the U.S. It did not provide further details, including how many people were on board and where they had been evacuated from, citing ‘operational security purposes.’
“The State Department earlier on Wednesday said it had helped about 6,500 Americans depart the region, after it told U.S. citizens to evacuate 14 countries in the Middle East on Tuesday amid the widening war with Iran.
“The U.S. government has since faced criticism from some Americans trapped abroad for not doing more to facilitate their return.”
#2 – Democracy Now reports, Secretary Hegseth said that the U.S. and Israel are in the process of crushing Iran’s government “without mercy” (www.democracynow.org/2026/3/5/headlines).
“Iran’s Foreign Ministry says U.S. and Israeli attacks have struck 33 civilian sites across Iran, including hospitals, schools, residential areas and historic sites. Earlier today, airstrikes ‘destroyed’ Tehran’s Azadi Stadium, which has hosted international soccer matches. Meanwhile, two Iranian Red Crescent Society paramedics told Middle East Eye last weekend’s bombing of an elementary school in southern Iran was a so-called double-tap airstrike, with the second strike coming after the school’s principal called parents and told them to come and pick up their children. The strikes killed about 175 people, most of them young girls.
#3 – More information from Democracy Now about the
bombed girls’ school ((https://www.democracynow.org/2026/3/4/nilo_tabrizy).
Reporter Nilo Tabrizy is interviewed by host Amy Goodman about this tragedy. Here are excerpts.
AMY GOODMAN: It happened early Saturday morning. One of the first strikes of the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran hit a girls’ school in Minab, in southern Iran. The death toll is now at least 175, most of them primary school girls. On Tuesday, thousands of people filled the streets of Minab for a mass funeral. The girls’ ages range from 7 to 12. Iran’s school week runs from Saturday to Thursday. When the missile hit the school on Saturday morning, the girls were in their morning session. After the strike, parents searched for their children among the dead.
NILO TABRIZY: Yeah, absolutely. So, right now we’re not necessarily able to get in touch with eyewitnesses or, you know, friends and families of the young girls who were killed, but we were able to verify the video. So, there was one video that I saw probably around 6:30 a.m. Eastern Time on Saturday, and I was able to verify that and know that the video that we saw that showed at least, you know, half of the structure was hit. You know, two stories were torn down. The scene was really graphic. I saw things like a small child’s hand in the rubble, blood-stained backpacks, homework scattered everywhere. And so, when I see scenes like that, it’s important to verify and know that it’s from the current moment, so I was able to do that.
#4 – Nicholas Kusnetz points out that the “War in Iran Could Have ‘Historic’ Disruptions on Energy Markets” (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02032026/iran-war-oil-energy-markets).
Kusnetz writes, “Oil prices jumped after the United States and Israel attacked Iran. Experts say the effects on oil and gas prices will depend on how long the war lasts and whether Iran damages energy infrastructure.”
“The U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is disrupting energy markets and driving oil and gas prices higher in the United States and globally. While those increases are modest so far, experts say the war has the potential to cause more severe and lasting impacts if Iran damages the region’s energy infrastructure or restricts shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
“Already, the three-day-old bombing campaign has killed hundreds of people in Iran, including the country’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
“Iran has retaliated by hitting a broad range of targets across the region, including oil and gas sites. On Monday, Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy said its Ras Tanura oil refinery sustained ‘limited’ damage after the interception of two drones. QatarEnergy said Monday it was halting production of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, after military attacks on two facilities.”
About one-fifth of global oil and LNG supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea. On Sunday only five oil tankers moved through the strait, according to S&P Global Energy, compared with about 60 per day before the war.
“Analysts say global markets can withstand these types of cuts over the short term—global oil prices were up about 7 percent Monday compared to the day before bombing began. But the conflict also has the potential to cause ‘the largest oil supply disruption in history,’ said Jim Burkhard, vice president and head of crude oil research at S&P Global Energy, in a note.
“If the reduction in tanker traffic continues for a week or so it will be historic,” Burkhard wrote. “Beyond that it would be epochal for the oil market with prices rising to ration scarce supply and impacts in financial markets.”
Any lasting disruptions could prove even more meaningful for global gas markets, said Daniel Sternoff, senior fellow and head of corporate partnership strategy at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. Countries generally have smaller inventories of gas than oil to cushion disruptions, Sternoff said, though the impacts would be most pronounced in Asia and Europe. The United States is the world’s largest gas producer and a net exporter, so he said consumers would be somewhat insulated.
“The biggest question now, Sternoff said, is whether Iran damages oil and gas facilities around the region.
“All of this looks like a deliberate Iranian choice to escalate really quickly against its neighbors and to try to use world energy markets and prices as a pressure point,” Sternoff said, referring to the attacks in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. “We are really quickly into a really dangerous phase here of which there is no precedent.”
“A sustained increase in crude oil prices will push up the price of gasoline, too. And unlike with natural gas, American consumers are not insulated from the global oil market, experts say. Even though the United States is a net exporter of oil, refiners still import large volumes of crude.
“If prices remain elevated for no more than a couple of weeks, there may be little lasting impact, said Alan Krupnick, a senior fellow and director of the industry and fuels program at Resources for the Future, an environmental and energy think tank. But if high prices hang on for months, Krupnick said, that could have ripple effects that cut both ways with respect to climate change and fossil fuel output.
#5 – Effects of the war on financial markets
Jason Karaian reports on how “global markets tumble as Iran War intensifies
(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/world/middleeast/stock-markets-iran.html). Here are excerpts from his article.
“A global market sell-off intensified on Tuesday, as Iran expanded its retaliatory attacks around the Persian Gulf region while American and Israeli officials signaled that strikes on Iran could continue for weeks. Stocks and bonds slipped and oil and gas prices surged. Investors sought havens like the dollar to protect their money from the uncertain and unpredictable effects of the fighting on the world economy.
“In a prolonged conflict, the combination of higher energy costs, disrupted logistics, and a generalized confidence shock would constitute a meaningful drag on global trade volumes at precisely the moment the world economy was still digesting the inflationary and growth consequences of the tariff shock,” noted analysts at ING, a bank. “The mother of all bad timings.”
“Fears of disruption to shipping on the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial waterway on Iran’s southern border through which a large share of the world’s oil and gas passes, upended energy markets. Oil prices continued to surge, with Brent crude oil, the global benchmark, rising more than 6 percent, to $83 a barrel, the highest level since mid-2024.
“Natural gas prices soared. European natural gas futures jumped for a second day; prices have roughly doubled over the past two days. A measure of gas cargoes in Asia rose 45 percent on Tuesday. Qatar, a major exporter of liquefied natural gas to buyers in Asia and Europe, halted L.N.G. production after attacks on its facilities on Monday. On Tuesday, Qatar’s state-owned energy company said it would also pause the production of “some downstream products” like polymers and aluminum.
“U.S. stocks were set to open sharply lower on Tuesday, with futures for the S&P 500 down 1.8 percent. Markets in New York recovered from early declines on Monday to close slightly higher, lifted by software and energy stocks.
“Stock markets in Asia and Europe recorded a second day of steep declines. The main index in South Korea dropped 7 percent on Tuesday, while stocks in Japan fell 3 percent. The Stoxx Europe 600 index fell more than 3 percent in early trading, with every market across the continent in the red.
“Bonds around the world sold off, as investors assessed the prospect of a potentially prolonged war worsening inflation and spurring higher interest rates. Rising oil and gas prices could result in increased prices at the pump for consumers and add costs to a wide range of component parts for businesses. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, which moves inversely to prices, rose by 0.4 percentage points, to 4.1 percent. Yields on government bonds in Britain, Germany and Japan jumped even more.
———-
In starting this war, Trump is gambling his presidency
Tyler Pager addresses this issue (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/us/politics/iran-trump-polls-republicans.html). Here’s some of what he writes.
“Six American service members were killed, and 3 U.S. military jets were shot out of the sky. Investors are bracing for market turmoil, fearing prolonged disruption to oil supplies. President Trump says the military campaign against Iran could extend for weeks, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Monday that ‘the hardest hits are yet to come from the U.S. military.’”
“With his decision Friday to authorize war against Iran, Mr. Trump is taking the biggest gamble of his presidency, risking the lives of American troops, more deaths and instability in the world’s most volatile region, and his own political standing.
“Mr. Trump, facing declining approval ratings and staring down the possibility that Republicans will lose control of Congress in the midterms, plunged the United States into what is shaping up to be its most expansive military conflict since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“In just over a year since taking office, Mr. Trump has authorized military action in seven nations, even after he repeatedly promised American voters that he would end, not start, wars. During his inaugural address, he said his ‘proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker.’”
“Now it is Mr. Trump who is orchestrating a rapidly expanding military effort in a region whose history and religious and factional politics make it an especially complex battleground.”
“While a handful of prominent voices in his movement have publicly denounced the decision to go to war, Mr. Trump’s base appears to be standing by him, for now.”
“Still, some of the president’s allies privately worry that there is little political upside to the attacks on Iran and huge downsides, particularly the loss of U.S. troops and rising cost of oil.
“Trump sold voters on a ‘pro-peace’ vision of himself as an America First candidate, yet in under 13 months, he has ordered strikes on seven foreign nations and plunged our country into more open-ended conflict using taxpayer dollars,” Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement.
“While he’s distracted by foreign conflicts and shiny ballrooms, Trump has failed to deliver on his promise to bring costs down for working families, who are paying more every day because of Trump’s actions.”
“Early polling after the attacks show most voters are not in favor of them. A CNN poll found 59 percent of Americans disapprove of Mr. Trump’s decision to launch strikes against Iran, and Reuters-Ipsos poll found that only 27 percent of Americans approve of the military campaign.”
———–
Concluding thoughts
The President continues to act as though he can make policy like a King. But not everything is going in his direction. His poll numbers on his presidency are low. Prices remain high. Wages suffer. Employment is barely moving, except in Health Care. There is widespread criticism of ICE. The war is unpopular. And the Epstein issue lingers on. He faces impeachable offenses once he leaves office. Democratic candidates are winning elections.
Vital issues - challenging pol and econ power 