Tag: iran

The harmful behavior and policies of Trump did not just start

Bob Sheak, April 17, 2026

Arlene Sheak edits

The news is filled with the harm Trump has generated over his second presidential term, and before. He is linked to Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile networks. His association with Elon Musk led to the reduction of federal jobs and serivces. His “Big Beautiful Bill” reduced taxes on the rich and powerful permanently. He has deployed ICE agents in cities across the country to find, detain, and/or deport immigrants, most of whom have been law-abiding and employed residents and citizens. Millions of people have protested against Trump’s ICE policies. He seems egomaniacally to look for every opportunity to have his name put on government building, monuments, and even on a one-dollar bill.

His tariffs inflated costs in the economy and had a drastic impact on many Americans. He started an unnecessary war on Iran that has led to much higher gas prices, fertilizer prices, and even higher inflation. He ordered the war on Iran without authorization from Congress. It is a lawless and unnecessary war. The war has caused immense destruction and death in Iran, including children. Now Trump has proposed a budget for 2027 that would raise military spending to levels not seen since WWII, while calling for severe reductions in other parts of the federal budget. He has even implied that he could order the use of nuclear bombs on Iran.

———-

Trump’s 2027 budget proposal favors military spending

LISA MASCARO and KEVIN FREKING report in an article for AP News on April 3, 2026 that Trump’s 2027 budget seeks $1.5T in defense spending alongside cuts in domestic programs (https://apnews.com/article/trump-2027-annual-budget-congress-defense-f95715d838bc17afd9799208cd3181.e3). Here’s some of what they write.

“President Donald Trump has proposed boosting defense spending to $1.5 trillion in his 2027 budget released Friday, the largest such request in decades, reflecting his emphasis on U.S. military investments over domestic programs.

“The sizable increase for the Pentagon, some 44%, had been telegraphed by the Republican president even before the U.S.-led war against Iran. The president’s plan would also reduce spending on non-defense programs by 10%.”

“‘It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things,’ he said. ‘They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal.’”

Debt, deficits and tough choices ahead

Mascaro and Freking continue. “With the nation running nearly $2 trillion annual deficits and the debt swelling past $39 trillion, the federal balance sheets have long been operating in the red.

“About two-thirds of the nation’s estimated $7 trillion in annual spending covers the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs, as well as Social Security income, which are essentially growing — along with an aging population — on autopilot.

“It’s the rest of the annual budget where much of the debate in Congress takes place, as Democrats over the years have insisted that changes in the level of spending for defense and non-defense need to be equitable.

Trump’s proposals “suggests $1.1 trillion for defense would come through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval, while $350 billion would go in the budget reconciliation process that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.”

———–

War crimes

Over 100 legal experts say Trump committed ‘war crimes’

In an article for Mick Hilden, Alternet on April 2, 2026, Mick Hilden reports that “over 100 legal experts say Trump committed ‘war crimes’

(https://www.alternet.org/trump-war-crimes-2676655530). He writes,

“When President Donald Trump launched war against Iran at the end of February, his conduct then and since may amount to ‘’war crimes,’ according to an open letter signed by over 100 international law experts. The experts assert that ‘the attack was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter’ as there was no evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat.

“The letter signatories include senior professors, leaders of prominent international law organizations, former government legal advisors and military law experts including former Judge Advocates General, who signed to “express profound concern about serious violations of international law and alarming rhetoric by the United States, Israel and Iran in the present armed conflict in the Middle East.”

This body of experts asserted that the war — ‘which is costing U.S. taxpayers between $1-2 billion each day’— raises four main concerns.

“First, there is the violation of international use-of-force laws, as ‘there is no evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat’ to justify Trump’s self-defense claims.

“Second, there appear to have been serious violations of international humanitarian law, with 67,414 civilian sites struck, 498 of which are schools and 236 of which are health facilities, killing at least 1,443 Iranian civilians, including 217 children.

“Third, the letter points out ‘concerns about rhetoric and threats from senior officials.’ These include threats of ‘no quarter’ from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has said that ‘the U.S. does not fight with ‘stupid rules of engagement’ and may conduct strikes on Iran ‘just for fun.’ At the same time, Trump has been making threats to civilian infrastructure like power and water desalination plants, which if carried out, entail serious war crimes.

“Finally, the signatories are worried about the reduction of institutional safeguards against further violations, asserting that Trump and his officials have ‘deliberately and systematically weakened the protections meant to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law.’ They have achieved this by removing senior military lawyers without cause, replacing military advocates general, and abolishing ‘civilian environment teams’ and other mechanisms specifically designed to limit harm to civilians during operations.”

“The letter concludes by urging ‘U.S. government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear U.S. commitment to and respect for norms of international law.’

“But their pleas may fall on deaf ears as on Wednesday night, Trump delivered a national address in which he gave little sign of changing course, instead declaring that he would bomb Iran ‘back to the Stone Age.’

———-

Mentally unstable

Amidst all this harm and chaos, Trump is now being characterized as mentally unstable, that is, MORE mentally unstable than in the past.

Peter Baker has a lenthy article in The New York Times on Trump’s condition

(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/13/us/politics/trump-mental-fitness-25th-amendment.html). Baker writes, “President Trump’s erratic behavior and extreme comments in recent days and weeks have turbocharged the crazy-like-a-fox-or-just-plain-crazy debate that has followed him on the national political stage for a decade.” Baker seems to favor the latter, just plain-crazy option. “A series of disjointed, hard-to-follow and sometimes-profane statements capped by his ‘threat to wipe Iran off the map last week and his head-spinning attack on the pope on Sunday night’ have left many with the impression of a deranged autocrat mad with power.”

Jamelle Bouie writes in the NYT on how Trump is “not a man in control of himself” (https://www.nytimes.com.2026/04/15/opinion/trump-iran-power-unitary-executive.html). “The president is struggling with the consequences of his actions, raging in protest of the fact that for all its firepower, the United States cannot bomb Iran into submission.” Trump looks for others to blame. “Over the last few days, Trump has denounced ‘the Fake News Media’ as ‘CRAZY, or just plain CORRUPT!’ for its reporting on the war. He attacked Pope Leo XIV in a bizarre rant, calling him ‘WEAK on Crime’ and ‘terrible for Foreign Policy.’ And he posted an A.I. image of himself as Jesus, surrounded by devotees, healing an unnamed man.”

Some top psychiatrists, have also written to Congressional majority and minority leaders in the US Senate and US House about Trump’s mental instability. The psychiatrists include James Gilligan, Prudence L. Gourgueshon, James R. Merekanges, and Jeffrey D. Sachs. The letter is reproduced on The Alternet website, April 15, 2026 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-psychiatrists-issue-urgent-letter-to-congress-about-trump-s-mental-instability-opinion/ar-AA20WQwAl).

“Dear Senate Majority Leader Thune, Senate Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker Johnson, and House Minority Leader Jeffries:

“We write to you today with a sense of urgency that we do not use lightly. The behavior and rhetoric of President Donald Trump have crossed a threshold that demands the immediate and bipartisan attention of Congress. This is not a partisan assessment. It is a judgment grounded in observable fact, consistent professional assessment, and the constitutional responsibilities that your offices carry.

President Trump exhibits what forensic mental health experts have, across dozens of independent assessments, identified as the ‘Dark Triad’ of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Rather than constituting a clinical diagnosis, this trait-based assessment is grounded in behavioral observation and is particularly useful for assessing the level of danger an individual poses in a political leadership position. We do not offer this as a clinical verdict. We offer it as the considered judgment of a substantial body of professional opinion, based on well-researched evidence that is consistent, accumulating, and impossible to dismiss.”

“What makes this more than an academic matter is what predictably happens when this personality structure collides with immovable obstacles. The clinical literature is clear: individuals with Dark Triad profiles, when confronted with situations they cannot control or escape, do not recalibrate. They escalate. The psychological imperative to relieve narcissistic collapse overrides strategic calculation, concern for consequences, and ordinary self-restraint. Rage surges to domination. Impulsivity overrides caution. The urgent need to extinguish psychological pain eclipses every other consideration.”

The most urgent of their recommendations is that “Congress must immediately retake its constitutional authority over war. The bombing of Iran and the initiation of a naval blockade — acts of war under both US and international law — cannot be authorized by presidential fiat. Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress the sole power to declare war and to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The Framers intended Congress to deliberate upon and be accountable for precisely such consequential actions. Congress must assume its constitutional authority now, before further escalation renders the question moot.”

———-

There are other deeply serious indications of Trump’s mental instability and the reckless policies that stem from it. Tom Nichols offers some glimpses into Trump’s behavior in an article titled “Trump’s Latest Meltdown” for The Atlantic Magazine, published on April 14, 2026

(https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/04/trump-pope-post-truth-social/686802).

Here are excerpts.

“On many recent nights, Donald Trump has been posting obsessively on his Truth Social site into the wee hours. The president, of course, has never been one for a solid night’s sleep—or restrained and temperate commentary on social media—but his emotional state seems to be fraying: This weekend, he attacked Pope Leo XIV, presented himself as Jesus Christ, and then jabbed at his phone until dawn.

“Judging from those posts, the commander in chief is in distress. No one can say for sure what is causing the president’s bizarre behavior. Perhaps Trump’s narcissistic insistence that he is always successful in everything he undertakes is feeling the sting and strain of multiple public failures, including the collapse of his campaign to dislodge the Iranian regime, plummeting approval ratings, the decline of the U.S. economy, and, on Sunday, the crushing defeat of one of his favorite fellow authoritarians, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.”

Nichols describes Trump’s posts on Truth Social on Sunday night, April 12.

“So a few minutes after nine on Sunday night, Trump posted a salvo of more than 300 words on Truth Social. According to the White House’s official schedule, he had just landed at Joint Base Andrews after his trip to Miami and was likely posting from the plane.

“His post was, in every way, bonkers. The president accused the pope of being ‘Weak on Crime’ and ‘Weak on Nuclear Weapons.’ He said that Leo ‘wasn’t on any list to be Pope’ and that he likes Leo’s brother Louis much better because ‘Louis is all MAGA.’”

“He had recommendations for the pontiff about how to be a better Vicar of Christ, saying he ‘should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.’”

“This one screed against the leader of a billion and a half Catholics was worrisome enough, but for Trump, it was just the beginning of a long night. Only 45 minutes after flaming the pope, Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself as (apparently) Jesus Christ, healing a sick man while soldiers and nurses and other worshipful white people gaze in awe and military jets fly overhead. You have to see the image to really grasp its weirdness, and to take in how offensive, even heretical, it might be to Christians of any mainstream denomination. (Trump has since taken that post down, claiming that he thought it depicted him as wearing a doctor’s outfit—a denial that is not only laughable, but is also hardly reassuring about his cognitive health.”

Nichols then provides a timeline for Trump’s behavior from 10:10 p.m. until 4:10 a.m. 

“Five minutes after this sacrilegious nonsense, Trump posted a mock-up of a Trump Tower on the moon. (Sure, why not.)

“Twenty minutes after that, at 10:10 p.m., Trump shared a silly meme about how Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden all look old after so many years in office, unlike himself. Twelve minutes later, he posted a clip from Newsmax’s Rob Carson Show. Twenty minutes later, he posted yet another Newsmax clip from the same show.

“Relative calm then overtook Trump’s phone until 12:43 a.m., when he announced that the U.S. Navy would be blockading Iranian ports in the morning—as if it were just another stray factoid to share in his news feed.

“Then, a bit more than two hours later—at 2:35 a.m.—he posted a link to a right-wing news site that approved of his Iran actions. At almost the same time, he posted another news story from the site about the Biden family and Ukraine. Two minutes later, he posted an article about Eric Swalwell leaving the California governor’s race. A few minutes later, he posted the same Biden story, again.

“Within another minute, Trump posted a link about an appeals court ruling that he could keep building his beloved ballroom until April 17. Finally, after a brief pause, he wrapped things up by posting a laudatory article from the New York Post—at 4:10 a.m., not long before dawn.”

——–

Concluding thoughts

Our president is an unstable, self-serving, and vindictive person. He has done great damage to the society, not the least of which is take the men and women of our military to an unnecessary war in Iran. This war has done great harm to the Iranians and has been costly to the U.S. in money, the use of expensive weapons, and the loss or wounding of American soldiers. Despite massive protests against his policies, he does what he wants, knowing that Republicans who control both houses of Congress will bend their knees to him. Despite all this, there is opposition outside of his Republican base to his policies and support in recent elections for dozens of Democratic candidates, pointing toward victories in November.

Trump proposes a huge increase in military spending, despite widespread economic stresses

Trump proposes a huge increase in military spending despite widespread economic stresses.

April 10, 2026

Bob Sheak

Arlene Sheak edits

Introduction

Trump and Republicans in Congress are – and have been – advancing a budget for the country that reduces assistance for ordinary citizens. This is glaringly obvious in Trump’s budget proposal for 2027, a budget that likely will be approved by Republicans in Congress. It is a budget that overwhelming favors military spending. It would not be so bad if citizens generally were in sound financial shape, but many are not. There has been an “affordability” problem across the country for most of Trump’s second term.

At the same time, people are also being negatively affected by Trump’s tariffs, cuts in government programs and staff in the early months of his second term, a precarious job market, and the disastrous effects of his Iran War reflected, for example, in high gas prices and high fertilizer prices. See the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for a detailed analysis if the economic difficulties associated with the policies of Trump and the Republican party (https://www.cbpp.org.research/federal-budget/a-record-of-historic-harm-in-the-first-year-of-trumps-second-term). Here is a summary of the CBPP’s research.

“The Trump Administration and congressional Republicans advanced one of the most radically regressive policy agendas in our nation’s history during the first year of President Trump’s second term. As a result, tens of millions of people will be less able to meet the growing cost of their basic needs — whether it’s affording groceries, seeing a doctor, keeping the power on, or paying the rent — even as the wealthiest households get a windfall of more tax breaks. At the same time, President Trump and his Administration have undermined and corrupted many basic functions of government, including the proper and timely allocation of funds approved by Congress, leading to more disruption and harm.”

These problems figure in the low poll ratings of Trump. For example, here is the most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest from The Economist (April 1, 2026):

  • Favorable: 36%
  • Unfavorable: 57%
  • Not sure: 7%

In this context, consider Trump’s 2027 budget proposal.

———-

“A Moral Obscenity”

Jake Johnson refers to this term in describing Trump’s 2027 budget proposal (https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-2027-budget). Here is some of what he writes.

“President Donald Trump’s White House released a budget proposal on Friday [Sept. 3] that pairs an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in military spending with tens of billions of dollars in cuts to domestic agencies and education, healthcare, climate, and housing programs.”

“Trump’s budget request for fiscal year 2027, which must be approved by Congress [now controlled by Republicans] includes $73 billion in total cuts to nondefense spending while boosting military outlays by 42%—or nearly $500 billion—compared to current levels.”

Johnson continues. “Programs cut or eliminated in the proposed budget—under the guise of slashing ‘woke programs’ and ‘ending the Green New Scam’—include the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice program, Community Services Block Grants, electric vehicle charging subsidies, renewable energy initiatives at the Interior Department, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing.

“The budget proposal also calls for cuts to the already-depleted Internal Revenue Service, without offering specific figures.”

“One budget expert noted that, if enacted, the White House’s requested cuts would bring nondefense discretionary spending to ‘its lowest level in the modern era.’”

Alternatively, what would $500 billion in Pentagon spending if it were spent on non-defense programs and the needs of typical citizens? Here are some answers to which Johnson refers.

“The $500 billion annual increase in proposed Pentagon spending—if it were instead deployed humanely—would be enough to solve or meaningfully address the nation’s great problems, from healthcare to daycare, from the climate crisis to affordable housing, from improving schools to making college education affordable,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of  Public Citizen. “Instead, Trump and Vought propose to spend an unfathomable amount on a Pentagon that can’t even pass an audit to further empower an out-of-control and incompetent leader in Pete Hegseth.”

———-

Trump’s Imperial Military Budget

Robert L. Borosage refers to Trump’s budget proposal as an “imperial military budget, The Nation, April 8, 2026

(https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-imperials-military-budget).

Borosage writes: “In his recent military budget, Trump is saying the quiet part out loud: Waging war is more important to his administration than providing for basic needs at home.”

He points out that “the $1.5 trillion military budget—a $500 billion, 42 percent increase that would be the largest year-on-year percentage increase since the mobilization for Korean War.” Trump is all-in on this increase, while saying that the federal government should not have to continue to pay for a host of non-defense programs. He quotes Trump.

“I said to [Office of Management and Budget director] Russell [Vought], ‘Don’t send any money for daycare because the United States can’t take care of daycare. That has to be up to a state. We can’t take care of daycare…. We’re fighting wars…. it’s not possible for us to take care of daycare. Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things, they can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection.”

Borosage continues. “It wasn’t just daycare that would take the hit. The press reported that president’s budget called for a 10 percent cut in all non-defense discretionary programs (outside of Medicare and Medicaid, which were savaged last year, and Social Security), targeting primarily anything related to climate, the environment, civil rights, education, and food support and other poverty programs. But in reality, compared to the cost of continuing current levels of service, it slashes domestic programs by nearly one-fourth. With ICE and Homeland Security getting increases, targeted programs were cut to the bone: the Environmental Protection Agency cut by more than one-half, LIHEAP—heating subsidies for low income families—eliminated, another $20 billion lopped off rebuilding infrastructure.”

Borosage elaborates his point.

“The proposed $1.5 trillion annual military budget, about 5 percent of the GNP, is real money. As Dean Baker notes, it comes to about $12,000 per family. And that doesn’t include the $200 billion supplemental that the Pentagon will reportedly seek to pay for the war on Iran.

Borosage continues. “The money lards a military-industrial complex that is the largest source of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government—and has never been able to pass an audit.”

And he refers to Representative Ro Khanna on what alternative non-military spending could buy.

“Let me tell you what $200 billion could do here in America. It would allow for free public college for every American kid. We could build a thousand trade schools, we could pay every American teacher $60,000 to start.

“We could have universal childcare: childcare at $10 a day, with childcare workers making $25 an hour. And we could fully fund special needs education at 40% of what the federal government needs to fund.

“Or it could pay to reverse the cuts already made in vital needs. Reversing the cuts in Obamacare made by Trump and the Republican Congress last year would cost $27 billion annually. Extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit that aided low-wage workers curing Covid would cost about $40 billion annually.

We don’t need more military spending to keep us safe. We already have such a force.

Indeed, “Trump repeatedly and correctly boasts that the US military is already the most powerful military in the world by far. The ‘Department of War’ accounts for 40 percent of the world’s military spending, more than the next nine costliest militaries combined—seven of which are (or were before Trump) our allies. This despite the fact that, surrounded by oceans to the East and West and allies to the North and South, the United States is uniquely secure against any conventional assault.”

Trump’s “military fantasies”

“But,” Borosage writes, “Trump’s budget request isn’t really a wartime budget. Most of the increase is a down payment on military fantasies. A centerpiece is an initial investment in Trump’s Golden Dome, his utterly fantastically recycled version of Reagan’s Star Wars, calling for building a defensive ‘dome against missile attacks. It will squander hundreds of billions on multiple layers of land-, sea-, and space-based sensors and interceptors designed to protect the US from next-generation missiles and drones. Like Reagan’s fantasy, the system won’t work, serving only to enrich high-tech military contractors, accelerate the arms race in space, and lead China and Russia and other future nuclear-armed adversaries (France?) to move toward hair-trigger alert postures. Add to that a down payment of $65.8 billion in shipbuilding for Trump’s ‘Golden Fleet,’ featuring ‘Trump-class’ battleships that, if our corrupted military contractors actually succeed in building, will provide tempting targets for inexpensive air and underwater drones that are becoming the weapons of choice for weaker countries.”

Borosage offers the following conclusion. “A $1.5 trillion annual military budget isn’t necessary for the defense of the United States. Rather it assumes that the US will continue to police the world. We will remain committed to global military hegemony—aiming to be dominant militarily in this hemisphere, from Europe to the Russian border, counter China in the South China Sea, strike terrorists across the world, sustain a global empire of 750-plus military bases, and deploy military forces to over 100 countries, while patrolling the seven seas.”

———-

William Hartung contends in an article for Common Dreams. April 3, 2026that Trump’s $1.5 trillion Pentagon Budget will make US weaker

(https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/1-5-trillion-pentagon-budget). William D. Hartung is a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and the author most recently of “Pathways to Pentagon Spending Reductions: Removing the Obstacles.”

Here’s some of what Hartung writes.

““It has been reported that the Pentagon on Friday [April 3] will release a proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 of almost $1.5 trillion, with approximately $1.15 trillion in discretionary spending contained in the department’s regular annual budget and an additional $350 billion dependent on Congress including it in a separate budget reconciliation bill.

“Whatever vehicles the administration chooses to promote this huge increase, it will be doubling down on a failed budgetary and national security strategy. If passed as requested, $1.5 trillion in Pentagon spending—in a single year–will make America weaker by underwriting a misguided strategy, funding outmoded weapons programs, and crowding out other essential public investments.

“The current war in the Middle East is a case study in the ineffectiveness of an overreliance on military force in seeking to make America or the world a safer place.”

Here is a key point. Hartung writes: “In his first term, President Trump abandoned a multilateral agreement that was effectively blocking Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. Six years later, in his second term, the president initially justified his disastrous intervention against Iran as being motivated by fears” that Iran might be developing such a capacity. He did this without evidence they were doing so.

Hartung emphasizes that diplomacy worked, while reckless resort to force does not, as evidenced by the devastating human, budgetary, and global economic consequences of the current Middle East war. Passing a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget would be a recipe for endless war.

“Meanwhile, other, non-military investments needed to protect the lives and livelihoods of Americans are being sharply reduced. By one account, the first week of the war on Iran cost $11.6 billion. That’s more than the Trump administration proposed for the annual budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency combined for this year. Yet addressing the climate crisis and the need to prevent future outbreaks of disease are essential to the safety and security of Americans.

“The administration has also reduced our available tools of influence on the foreign policy front by decimating the Agency for International Development, laying off trained diplomats at the State Department, and withdrawing from major international agreements. This leaves force and the threat of force as virtually the last tools standing for promoting U.S. security interests.”

———-

Eric Ross writes at length for Tom Dispatch on “The Price of Empire and the Costs of War on Iran.” April 2, 2026 (https://tomdispatch.com/blowback-2026). In his opening paragraph, Ross presents a summary of the many “costs” of Trump’s war on Iran, not only for the US but even more on Iran.

“What will the costs of the latest round of illegal, ill-fated U.S. military adventurism in the Middle East amount to? Some of the toll is already clear. Washington has squandered billions of dollars on a reckless war of aggression against Iran. A merciless campaign of aerial bombardment has driven millions from their homes. American and Israeli airstrikes have rained destruction on 10,000 civilian sites and already killed more than 3,000 people in Iran and Lebanon. Among the dead are more than 200 children, many killed in a U.S. strike on a girls’ school, a war crime that evokes the grim precedent of such past American atrocities as the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam or the 1991 Amiriyah shelter bombing in Iraq.

“The latest war has also dealt a potentially fatal blow to our already battered democratic institutions. It’s a war neither authorized by Congress nor supported by the public. Instead, it was launched by a president who refuses to submit to the law or heed the will of the people, claiming in true authoritarian fashion that he is the law, and that he alone embodies the popular will.”

———-

Sarah Fortinsky writes on how Trump’s approval rating has hit a new low as the Iran war squeezes economy, and reminds us how this war was arbitrarily started by Trump, with no consultation with Congress and with no concern about public opinion. Now, the public is reacting, belatedly  negatively(https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5811709-trump-approval-rating-iran-war-economy). Here’s some of what she writes.


“President Trump’s approval numbers have slipped in recent weeks, hovering near the lowest levels of his second term, as Americans — including his conservative base — grow increasingly wary of a prolonged war in Iran that could portend trouble for the U.S. economy.

“Recent polling from YouGov and The Economist has Trump’s approval rating down 4 percentage points since just before the U.S. struck Iran, falling from 39 percent in late February to 35 percent in the latest survey.

“A Reuters/Ipsos poll similarly put Trump’s approval at 36 percent, down from 40 percent earlier this month, while a Fox News survey found the president’s disapproval rating at 59 percent, the highest level recorded in either of his terms.

The shift has coincided with declining support for Trump’s handling of the Iran war, which saw its sharpest drop yet this past week — as gas prices climbed to more than $4 for the first time since 2022….”

“Trump, who spoke to the public Wednesday night [April 1] about the conflict, saw his polling on Iran start out at 39 percent in early March, before dropping to 36 percent for two weeks and then ticking down to 30 percent in the latest YouGov/Economist survey.”

“The drop-off in Trump’s overall approval rating comes as Americans broadly sour on the economy, with only 14 percent saying conditions are improving….”

———-

Concluding thoughts

Trump’s budget proposal, with its emphasis on military spending and dismissal of federal responsibility for most non-defense programs, is losing his support among vast numbers of citizens, even among his base. This is reflected in polls and also in recent Democratic electoral victories. It is also reflected in the 8 million people who demonstrated against Trump on “No King’s” day. Still, it is of great concern that Trump is still able to wield such great power as president.

The true costs of the Iran War

Bob Sheak, March 22, 2026

Arlene Sheak edits

Introduction

There are so many indications of how poorly and undemocratically Trump is using the power of his presidency. Still, he continues to have the support of his enormous MAGA base. He dominates the Republican Party and has the support of large segments of the rich and powerful. His party controls both the House and Senate. He can count on the Supreme Court to support him in significant ways, by giving him immunity from the law while he is president, as one example.

One miscalculated way Trump uses this power is to take the country to war in Iran. It can be a distraction from other problems the president faces –the lackluster economy, the healthcare crisis, the absence of job creation, the angry responses to the effects of his tariffs, his relationship to Epstein, the low ratings he gets for his presidency, and so forth. But Trump’s Iran war exacerbates all these problems.

———-

The Iran War

He has taken the country into an unnecessary war of his choosing that is compounding the country’s economic difficulties – while crippling Iran’s economy, killing and disrupting the population, including young children. It is important to remember that, contrary to the Trump government’s distorted assessment, Iran did not represent a threat to the U.S., and that prior to the war they had expressed a willingness to negotiate with the U.S. on the nuclear bomb issue and Trump seemed to agree. CNN journalists reported on this (https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/03/middleeast/iran-nuclear-talks-us-strike-intl-hnk).

“Iran has tentatively agreed to resume nuclear talks with the United States as it tries to avert the threat of further military strikes, in what would be the first such negotiations since the Trump administration bombed three of Iran’s nuclear sites last summer.

“The discussions are expected to be held in Oman, a source familiar with the matter told CNN Tuesday night. Iran’s semi-official ⁠ISNA news agency also reported Oman as the venue for talks that it said would take place on Friday. ‍

“The White House said Tuesday that talks between would proceed this week despite changes requested by Tehran to the venue and format.

“Sources had told CNN on Monday that Iran’s top diplomat, Abbas Araghchi, was likely to meet US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump, in Istanbul on Friday.

“However, the plans hit a snag after Tehran requested the talks be relocated to a different city, that regional participants be excluded and that the scope of the discussions be limited to just the country’s nuclear program, CNN reported earlier. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday that Trump is keeping open the option of military strikes if diplomacy fails.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkiansaid Tuesday that Tehran is pursuing negotiations –– though with conditions.

“‘I have instructed my Minister of Foreign Affairs, provided that a suitable environment exists — one free from threats and unreasonable expectations — to pursue fair and equitable negotiations, guided by the principles of dignity, prudence, and expediency,’ Pezeshkian wrote on X.

“He said he has given the go-ahead for the negotiations following ‘requests from friendly governments in the region.’”

Of course, Trump subsequently ordered the launching of the “excursion,” now in its fourth week. But, despite the destruction and death Iran is suffering, Iran is striking back, sending drones into nearby countries and U.S. bases, causing some casualties, and closing the Hormuz Straits, which has caused oil and gas prices to soar in the U.S. and around the world.

———-

The costs to the U.S. of the war

The $1.3-Million-a-Minute War

Nicholas Kristof, an opinion columnist for The New York Times, reports that the war is costing the U.S. $1.3 million a minute

(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/21/opinion/iran-war-cost.html). Here’s some of what he writes.

“Let’s ponder for a moment the vast sums that we’re pouring into the war with Iran. The Pentagon has requested [an additional] $200 billion (more than $1,400 per American household) to fund the war, but even that understates the total cost.

Linda Bilmes, a Harvard expert on financing war, who was a former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce under Bill Clinton, told me [Kristof] that most of the costs will arrive later. For example, any soldier who develops a medical disorder or aggravates an existing one will receive lifelong benefits and medical care. If today’s troops claim such benefits at the same rate as those who participated in the 1990-91 gulf war, that alone would eventually cost at least $600 billion, Bilmes said. Not to mention, of course, the human toll of all of this.

“All told, she expects this Iran war to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion.”

Alternative ways this money could be spent – examples

Kristof writes: “Here are some ideas of what the war money could be used for instead. My calculations are conservative, based on Pentagon reporting that the first six days of the war cost $11.3 billion — and even that incomplete tally amounted to more than $1.3 million a minute.

“For a bit more than two weeks of this war, we could offer free college education to every American family earning less than $125,000 annually, at a cost of around $30 billion a year.

“For less than three weeks of war, or $35 billion, we could run a nationwide pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds.

“For $75 million, about an hour’s worth of war, we could provide three books free to every child in America who is living under the poverty line, according to Kyle Zimmer of First Book, a nonprofit that works on early literacy. Research suggests that books like these can help get children reading and improve their outcomes.

“A woman dies in the United States every two hours, on average, from cervical cancer. Screening all uninsured women who need it would cost perhaps $1 billion and could save hundreds of lives, according to Dr. Linda Eckert, a cervical cancer expert at the University of Washington. That’s less than 13 hours of the war bill.

“We could get glasses to all 2.3 million low-income schoolchildren in the United States who need them but don’t have them. The base cost would be about $300 million, according to Vision to Learn, a nonprofit that does this work. The bill would be what we spend on four hours of this war.

“For about $34 billion a year, less than three weeks of war, we could restore health insurance subsidies that the Trump administration let expire last year. One analysis predicted an additional 8,800 preventable American deaths as a result.

“The war money would save even more lives if we allocated part of it abroad. Indeed, we spent more on the first three days of war than we spent ($4 billion) on all humanitarian aid in 2025. Consider what we could achieve internationally:

“For $400 million or less, a bit more than five hours of war, we could deworm all children in need worldwide, according to Evidence Action, a nonprofit that works on deworming. This would result in stronger, healthier children and adults.

“For $380 million, less than five hours of war, we could provide vitamin A supplementation for the 190 million children who need it. Helen Keller Intl, a nonprofit engaged in this work, says this would prevent up to 480,000 child deaths each year and virtually eliminate blindness from vitamin A deficiency.

“About one day’s worth of war spending could save more than 350,000 lives from malaria, through a rigorously studied screening and prevention program, according to Esther Duflo, an economist at M.I.T.’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab.”

“If we reallocated this war spending to needs at home and abroad, Americans would have access to school from pre-K to college and would have health insurance, and large numbers of children worldwide would not starve to death — and we would still have billions of dollars left over.”

———-

Economist Jack Rasmus considers “some economic consequences of the Iran War” (https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/03/20/some-economic-consequences-of-the-iran-war). Jack Rasmus is author of  ’The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump, Clarity Press, January 2020. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network on Fridays at 2pm est. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus.

Here is just some of what he writes in this highly documented article.

“As the US-Israel war on Iran enters its third week [now fourth week], the outlines of the economic consequences and fallout of the war have begun to emerge. As the war continues—and by most indicators it appears it will for months longer—the War’s negative impact on the US and world economies will deepen further.

“What are some of the economic dimensions for the war’s negative consequences?

“First and most obvious is the current oil price shock’s effect on inflation. Not just for US prices, but other countries as well. And not just for goods and services but for asset prices (i.e. stocks, bonds, forex, derivatives, gold, silver, etc.).

“Another is the long-term disruption of global supply chains and the volume of global trade.

“As inflation rises, central banks, led by the US Federal Reserve, will continue to raise interest rates with a corresponding negative impact on the US and other economies, many of which are already nearly stagnant or are beginning to enter recession. Most heavily impacted will be Europe, the Gulf States, and Middle East energy-dependent countries in East Asia like Japan and South Korea.

“Another negative impact will be on global money capital flows—both real investment and financial portfolio asset markets (stocks, bonds, forex, derivatives, etc.).

“Then there’s the US budget deficit and national debt. The deficit will now approach $2 trillion a year, for the third straight year. That deficit will drive the national debt to exceed $39 trillion by later this spring and possibly $40 trillion by year end.

“The Iran war and its costs converge with a host of other forces driving the deficit and the debt into ever greater crisis: Trump’s escalating war spending (including his plan for $400 billion more for just the Pentagon), the current sharply slowing US real economy (that grew at a mere 0.7% rate in fourth quarter 2025), the present collapse of employment and job creation now underway in the US and Trump’s massive 2025 $5 trillion tax cuts benefiting mostly investors and corporations at the expense of US Treasury tax revenues which is estimated to reduce corporate income tax revenues by $77 billion in 2026.

“Not least, the war will accelerate the current fiscal crisis of the American Empire. The costs of Empire now exceed $2.2 trillion a year when all categories of ‘defense’ in the US budget are considered, not just the Pentagon and the US Department of Defense—the latter alone which now exceeds $1.1 trillion a year.

“Trump’s war in Iran will exacerbate all these negative economic trends, US and global; and the longer the war continues—which by all indicators it will—the worse the negative economic consequences.”

———-

Trump underestimates the costs of the Iran War

Nick Turse considers the costs in an article for The Intercept

(https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/trump-iran-war-cost).

He states his central point: “The Trump administration is drastically undercounting the price tag of the U.S. war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs.

“The Pentagon on Thursday said the U.S. spent about $11.3 billion in just one week of its war on Iran; Trump economic adviser Kevin Hassett similarly put the figure at $12 billion on Sunday.

‘But these sums are dwarfed by estimates offered by experts in the costs of war, lawmakers experienced with the Pentagon budget, and two government officials briefed on Operation Epic Fury who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

‘At the very least, they say the war is burning through between $1 billion and $2 billion per day — or roughly $11,500 to $23,000 per second. The cost, the officials told The Intercept, could rise to a quarter trillion dollars or more over the coming months.

The long-term costs

Turse continues. “Even that is a drop in the bucket compared to the long-term expenses, which could cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in the decades to come. One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations.

“‘If this war takes months rather than weeks, the costs will become astronomical,’ said Gabe Murphy, a policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog advocating for an end to wasteful spending,

“Jules Hurst III, the War Department’s acting comptroller and chief financial officer, called the Pentagon’s initial $11.3 billion estimate a “ballpark number,” speaking at the Reagan Institute’s National Security Innovation Base Summit. Hurst said a more comprehensive figure would be provided with a supplemental budget request, which he said the Pentagon plans to soon submit to the White House and Congress.

“Democratic lawmakers believe the true number is far higher because the Pentagon estimate did not include many expenses, including the massive buildup of military assets, weapons, and personnel in the Middle East ahead of the conflict.

Lawmakers have said they expect the Iran War supplemental request to reach at least $50 billion — on top of a $1.5 trillion War Department budget request for 2027.

Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif. told The Intercept that Americans had been conned into an open-ended conflict, with unclear goals and no exit plan.

“‘We haven’t gotten sufficient details in public or behind closed doors about the strategy, the objectives, the length of the operation, or how much this will cost taxpayers,’ she told The Intercept. ‘The American people are demanding an end to this illegal war to prevent more killings of children, retaliation against U.S. service members, skyrocketing costs to U.S. taxpayers, and yet another endless war.’”

Turse reports, “A three-week conflict could cost taxpayers between $60 billion and $130 billion, according to the two government officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely, with both stressing that the estimates were speculative. “It’s a back of the napkin estimate,” said one official.

“A five-week war could top out at $175 billion. Eight weeks could put the total at $250 billion. ‘They really have no idea of the real cost,’ said one of the officials, noting that bookkeeping is not a Pentagon strong suit. The self-styled War Department has never passed an audit, despite almost a decade of attempts.”

Estimate costs of the war don’t consider the “pre-war military buildup, which had already cost taxpayers an estimated $630 million. “according to Elaine McCusker, a former senior Pentagon budget official now at the American Enterprise Institute. (McCusker said those costs are likely to be absorbed within the Pentagon’s existing $839 billion 2026 budget.)”

“Initial estimates of the first 100 hours of the war tacked on around $3.7 billion in operational costs, munitions, and damaged or destroyed equipment, according to a cost breakdown by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS. This and other estimates turned out to be drastic undercounts as Pentagon officials, in classified briefings, disclosed that the military burned through $5.6 billion worth of munitions in just the first two days of the war. An updated analysis by CSIS now estimates that Epic Fury cost $16.5 billion by its 12th day.”

Linda Bilmes (see reference to her on p. 3) says that the price tag of the war will exceed $50 billion if the conflict stretches into its third or fourth week. ‘Probably higher, she added.

“Bilmes cautioned that enormous short-term expenses — like spent munitions, the deployments of aircraft carrier strike groups, and aircraft shot down — will be eclipsed by even more significant expenditures like the long-term costs of veterans’ benefits and interest on the debt to pay for the war. The ultimate cost, Bilmes says, may reach into the trillions of dollars.

“Bilmes notes that around 50,000 U.S. troops are deployed around the Middle East as the United States and Israel, as well as Iran and its proxies, strike fuel depots, oil facilities, and military sites — all of which release noxious substances shown to negatively affect human health. ‘The majority are being exposed to toxins, contamination, acid rain, dust from infrastructure destruction, and burning oil fumes, so we can estimate that at least one-third will be claiming disability benefits under the PACT Act,’ she said, referring to a landmark 2022 law expanding health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances. ‘That is a major long-term cost that almost nobody looks at.’ Bilmes said that if veterans claim benefits at the rate of the extremely short 1990 Gulf War — 37 percent of whom receive compensation today — this alone would add around $600 billion in costs over their lifetimes. 

Bilmes explained that these long-term costs are exacerbated by the fact that all the money is borrowed. “Back in 2004, the public debt was below $4 trillion. Now the gross debt is $38 trillion — and about 30 percent of that is due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” she said. A key contributor to that spike is the fact that the United States went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 while simultaneously cutting taxes — increasing spending while reducing revenues.

“‘This combination had never happened before in the history of U.S. wars,’ she said. With interest rates almost double what they were in the 2010s, Bilmes notes that 14 percent of the federal budget already goes to interest payments, which are destined to rise further with the Iran war.”

“Murphy, the policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense,

“‘We’re facing a spiraling debt crisis, skyrocketing health care premiums, dire food insecurity, and natural disasters that are growing more frequent, extreme, and costly. These are national security issues,’ Murphy, policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, told The Intercept. “If Congress believes this war is a good use of taxpayer dollars, it should vote on an authorization for the use of military force.” It hasn’t yet done this. Taxpayers are entitled to more clarity about why this war is being fought, what the endgame is, and how much it will cost in American casualties and deaths.

The unfortunate truth is that Americans will be paying massive sums of money for generations to finance Trump’s second war with Iran. “These costs aren’t known to the American people.” Our children will end up paying for his tragic misadventure.

———-

The Trump government wants $200 billion more for its war on Iran

Helene Cooper, Tony Romm, Megan Mineiro and Karoun Demirjian report on the Pentagon’s request of $200 billion to fund the Iran War

(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/middleeast/pentagon-200-billion-iran-war-funding-hegseth.html). Here’s some of what they report

“The Pentagon has asked for $200 billion in funding for the war in Iran, according to a military official and an administration official, a significant sum adding to the costs of an already divisive campaign.

“The request has been sent to the White House, the military official said, which will review it before any request for funds is formally submitted to Congress. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the proposal. The request was reported earlier by The Washington Post.

“‘Obviously, it takes money to kill bad guys,’ Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said when asked about the request during a news conference on Thursday, adding: ‘As far as the $200 billion, I think that number could move.’

“On Capitol Hill, the sum — nearly a quarter of the country’s entire annual defense budget — is already raising eyebrows among some moderate Republicans who would be key to approving the funds, including Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and the head of the chamber’s Appropriations Committee. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska and a key swing vote, said that the Trump administration would have to make a more concerted effort to engage Congress on the war before such a request could be approved.

The journalists note, “It was not immediately clear how long the Pentagon intended for the $200 billion for the Iran war to last, or what operations it would cover.” This request suggests that the U.S. military is preparing for an extended engagement in Iran.

Last week, Pentagon officials told lawmakers that the first six days of the war against Iran had cost more than $11.3 billion. Since then, President Trump has threatened to escalate the fighting, including floating the idea of putting American troops on the ground even as he has alternated the threats with suggestions that the United States might conclude its military campaign soon.

But the $200 billion figure suggests that the U.S. military is preparing for an extended engagement in Iran.

———-

Concluding thoughts

Trump had opportunities to continue negotiations with Iran, but instead he chose to end them and start the war. The evidence that Iran was building or preparing to build nuclear bombs is non-existent. Trump insisted that this regime could not be trusted, but negotiations, like those in the past, may have opened the door to international inspectors, who would have been able to verify what Iran was doing.

The evidence that the Iran regime is terrible to its people is well documented. But that is beside the point. We tolerate un-democratic and cruel regimes elsewhere, in for example Russia, North Korea, Iraq, or deal with them in other ways, say, with sanctions. In a better world than we have, the U.S. would set an example to others, but under Trump and his allies, we have become an example of a narcissistic President with an oligarchic strain who tends to use the threat, if not the employment, of military action in attempts to get his way. If this continues, the U.S. will not have any reliable allies.

A war of choice

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

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/iran-war-congress-war-powers-act

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.