Latest from The Intercept
The Intercept
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The Intercept
How Democratic Leaders Quietly Support Trump's March to War With Iran
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Some Democrats are fighting to stop war with Iran, but party leaders are silently acquiescing or, worse, supporting an attack. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., conducts a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington on May 20, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images As President Donald Trump barrels toward a direct war with Iran, the most powerful Democrats in Congress are issuing statements that are at best tepid and confusing. At worst, they are cheering escalation. Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution and other legislation to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party's most powerful politicians refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump. Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be 'tough' on Iran and not make any 'side deals' without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 2, 2025 'The United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response,' he said in a follow-up statement released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. 'The Iranian regime's stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.' Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks — 'a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.' The 'meaningful leverage' in question, however, is bombing Iran — something Schumer tacitly supports. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel's attack with a toothless statement that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. 'Our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad,' he said. 'It is clear that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to the entire free world. There is no circumstance where Iran can be permitted to become a nuclear power.' Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency. 'As soon as is practical, it is imperative to find a rigorous diplomatic path forward and avoid any situation where U.S. troops are put in harm's way,' he said. As with Schumer, 'diplomacy' is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand — and certainly not a requirement. A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump's pending bombing campaign, namely the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal and CNN, which suggest Iran hadn't decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did. If all of the statements look similar, it's because, according to DropSite and the American Prospect, many members of Congress are simply copy and pasting approved language from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby group. These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they 'stand with Israel' and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words. Among the influential Democrats pledging their unflinching support for Israel was Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many others, Meeks hauled out a talking point about how 'Israel has a right to defend itself' — meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It's a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an 'imminent threat' in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a 'right to defend itself' in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so. The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don't end there. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, influential members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, both issued mealy-mouthed statements trying to split the baby between 'diplomacy' rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel's bombing of Iran. These non-positions — or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal war — are notable precisely because there are some lawmakers who are at least trying to do something to stop a direct, all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran. According to the latest count by Prem Thakker, 37 members of Congress have thrown their weight behind some kind of effort to stop war. These fall into two camps. The first is a resolution in both the House and Senate that invokes the 1973 War Powers Act, which says that only Congress can declare war, a principle that has been routinely violated by U.S. presidents. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading this push in the Senate, where few cosponsors have signed on. (Someone with knowledge of the effort told us that the organizers aren't accepting co-sponsors in a bid to gain bipartisan support first.) Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are leading the sister effort in the House, and it has 28 supporters total, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. D-N.Y. A total of 27, or 12.7 percent, of House Democrats have lent the bill their support. There is another effort afoot, too: the No War Against Iran Act that was already in motion before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, though it was introduced after the attacks began. The Senate bill, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would prevent federal funds from being used for a war that's not approved by Congress. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., are among its eight Senate supporters. Democratic leaders, however, are leaving their colleagues out to dry. Schumer, for instance, declined to join Sanders's bill as a cosponsor — despite having cosponsored the same effort in 2020. This tacit and open support for Trump's war aren't limited to active leadership; the upper echelons of the party establishment have been noticeably silent. Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement. Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama haven't publicly opposed Trump's reckless threats and build-up to war with Iran. Obama, for example, has re-emerged into the spotlight — but made no mention of Iran or Trump's push for war during a public appearance this week. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — despite frequently criticizing Trump for his military parade, detainment of a U.S. senator, and anti-abortion policies — hasn't spoken in opposition to a US war with Iran. And, likewise, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who has been speaking out against Trump, has yet to publicly criticize Trump's build up to bombing Iran. Surveying these responses — somewhere between muted disinterest and consent — there's only one plausible conclusion: Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement in this potentially catastrophic regime change war. It's unlikely most Democratic hawks will come out in open support of an attack that carries such political risks; like with Iraq 20 years ago, things could quickly go off the rails. Yet, even as party leaders seek to burnish their credentials as the 'resistance' to Trump, they're tacitly, and sometimes openly, giving Trump a green light to lurch America into yet another open-ended war of choice. Join The Conversation
The Intercept
a day ago
- Health
- The Intercept
Children Are Starving in Gaza, as Soldiers Kill People Looking for Food
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Doctors trying to save starving children and parents trying to feed their families spoke with The Intercept. A child receives treatment for malnutrition at the Patient Friends Benevolent Society hospital in Gaza City on May 29, 2025. Photo: Huda Skaik In Gaza's clinics and overwhelmed hospitals, doctors and nutritionists face a haunting, daily reality: children wasting away before their eyes, unable to stand and play, who can hardly breathe. Israeli troops are massacring people at food distribution sites every day. On Tuesday alone, soldiers killed at least 70 people and wounded hundreds seeking food at the distribution site set up by Israel and the U.S. They shot people with tank shells, drones, and machine guns as they tried to get food. Malnutrition is no longer a looming threat; it is a full-blown humanitarian emergency exacerbated by relentless genocide, siege, and the systematic breakdown of Gaza's health care infrastructure. As the genocide on Gaza grinds on after Israel's breaking of the ceasefire, doctors and mothers across the Strip describe an unfolding catastrophe: a severe and accelerating child malnutrition crisis that, left unchecked, could claim thousands of lives. Israel's 80-day blockade that has enforced a strict closure of crossings and blocked aid deliveries has resulted in nearly 330 deaths, most of them children. To learn how malnutrition is affecting the children of Gaza, I spoke to three nutritionist doctors and one mother struggling to feed her baby in Gaza. Baby Eleen on February 26, 2025. Photo: Batoul Abu Ali Batoul Abu Ali gave birth to her daughter, Eleen Hallak, on May 21, 2024, amid the chaos of war. Now just over a year old, Eleen is already showing signs of malnutrition. 'She used to be healthier,' Batoul says. 'Now her diet lacks fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy — everything a child needs. I can only feed her twice a day: maybe some tomato, zucchini, potato, lentils, or fortified biscuits.' Batoul struggles most with finding milk for her baby. 'No one can watch their child go hungry. I do everything I can to find food, but it's never enough.' Batoul has received some guidance from specialists and is prescribed nutritional biscuits and peanut butter paste for Eleen, but access is inconsistent. 'I've fallen into depression. I just want to keep my little lovely baby Eleen alive,' she says. Mothers like Batoul are left with impossible choices, to try to keep their children alive while waiting for the crossings to open. Dr. Suzan Ma'rouf is a clinical nutritionist at the Patient Friend's Benevolent Society in Gaza City. 'Children are losing weight rapidly,' she says. 'They show all the signs: wasting, yellowing skin, thinning hair, brittle nails.' Dr. Ma'rouf describes a sharp increase in malnutrition cases since the beginning of the war, worsened further by the closure of border crossings since March. 'Even when food is available, the prices are astronomical. Most families, especially large ones, simply cannot afford to feed their children nutritious meals,' she explains. 'Newborns and their mothers are especially vulnerable due to the severe shortage of infant formula, hygiene products, and maternal supplements.' At the Friend's Benevolent Society, Dr. Ma'rouf is currently following over 3,500 children regularly, with more new cases emerging daily. She notes that both moderate and severe forms of malnutrition are rampant, with children suffering from vitamin and mineral deficiencies. In this condition, their bodies begin consuming their own nutrient stores, leading to exhaustion, stunted physical, and cognitive growth. Treatment is nearly impossible for malnutrition in Gaza. 'With the blockade, we don't have access to therapeutic food, fortified biscuits, or medical-grade nutrition. Even when we catch cases early, we don't have the supplements to stop them from worsening,' confirms Dr. Ma'rouf. Read our complete coverage A baby receives treatment for malnutrition at Al-Awda Hospital in Nuseirat on May 31, 2025. Photo: Courtesy of Nader Garghon/Al-Awda Hospital Dr. Rana Zaiter is chief of clinical nutrition at Al-Awda Hospital in Nuseirat in the middle of the Gaza Strip, which has a specialized department to treat severe acute malnutrition in children under 5. She paints a bleak picture: 'We are overwhelmed. Every day, we see more children arriving with extreme weight loss, anemia, and symptoms of immune deficiency. Children are too weak to fight infections. They have constant gastrointestinal illnesses, are lethargic, dizzy, and often can't even play or stand. Some are developing bowed legs — a clear sign of rickets and calcium deficiency.' Dr. Zaiter attributes the explosion in cases to the ongoing famine, closure of crossings for over 80 days, and soaring poverty. 'Mothers cannot breastfeed properly due to their own poor nutrition. Their milk is insufficient and unfulfilling. Babies cry constantly from hunger,' she says. 'Pregnant women are giving birth prematurely, to underweight babies, because their bodies can no longer sustain the burden of pregnancy.' Dr. Zaiter adds that nearly one-third of all pediatric cases at Al-Awda now involve moderate or severe malnutrition. The hospital follows treatment protocols from WHO and UNICEF, but a dire lack of supplies— including therapeutic foods, fortified biscuits, high-energy peanut butter, and infant formula — has crippled their ability to treat patients effectively. 'When the crossings briefly reopened in late May, only a tiny fraction of the needed supplies made it through — barely 1 percent of actual demand,' said Dr. Zaiter. 'We are operating in lifesaving mode. We need urgent international action to open the crossings and flood Gaza with nutritional aid before it's too late.' From Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, I spoke to a pediatric nutrition specialist, who requested anonymity. They highlighted the systematic breakdown in services across Gaza: 'Many malnutrition clinics have shut down following the collapse of the ceasefire and displacement of entire neighborhoods. The most common cases we now treat involve iron-deficiency anemia and rickets — both preventable if children had access to basic nutrition.' Malnutrition affects more than the body. 'Iron deficiency causes loss of appetite and long-term developmental delays. Severe or moderate malnutrition also severely impacts a child's mental health and cognitive development,' they say. Access to treatment is a growing concern. 'Many families live far from functioning clinics, and there's no transportation to come to the clinics and check on their children,' they say. 'The clinics that remain are understocked and overstretched. On top of that, many children refuse to take nutritional supplements, and we have no alternatives.' In Gaza, keeping a baby alive is now an act of resistance, of endurance. Doctors, nutritionists, and mothers alike are calling and appealing for the crossings to open, for aid to be allowed in, for the massacres to stop. Otherwise, Gaza's children continue to waste away, their futures starving before they have had a chance to begin and draw the first steps of their lives. Join The Conversation
The Intercept
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Intercept
Tucker Carlson Outdid the Mainstream Media — But Still Missed This Crucial Point
The Tucker Carlson Live Tour, featuring Donald Trump, in Glendale, Ariz., on Oct. 31, 2024. Photo: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images 'Heartbreaking: The worst person you know just made a great point.' Has there ever been a more perfect moment for this old meme? On Tuesday, talk show host and worst person Tucker Carlson challenged fellow worst person Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz over the latter's dangerous support for further U.S. military action against Iran. In a now-viral video clip, Carlson asked Cruz the simple question of how many people live in Iran. Cruz could not answer. 'You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?' Carlson asked. 'How could you not know that?' Cruz responded, 'I don't sit around memorizing population tables.' After a couple more questions, whereupon Cruz began visibly squirming, Carlson delivered his coup de grâce. 'You don't know anything about Iran!' Carlson said, both men raising their voices. 'You're a senator who is calling for the overthrow of the government and you don't know anything about the country!' It was a thing to behold, but also evokes another classic meme: You do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to Tucker Carlson, the host of arguably the most racist show in cable news history. He was simply doing what so many establishment reporters have failed to do: He asked whether a top U.S. politician pushing for an unprovoked Manichean forever war knew basically anything about the people he was seeking to subject to American hellfire. This is not a credit to Carlson. It's a failure of the mainstream media. You would think news organizations would have learned their lessons long ago — but that doesn't mean this is a precise replay of past media failures in matters of imperial war waging. Comparisons to the Iraq War are everywhere, but hawkish mainstream media coverage didn't play out the same way in 2003. Then, mainstream U.S. news outlets settled on a near-total consensus affirming the likely existence of nonexistent 'weapons of mass destruction' to justify an illegal war. Mainstream coverage today has at the very least reiterated the statements of the United States' own intelligence agencies and the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, among others, that, despite their concerns about Iran's amassing of enriched uranium, there is no compelling evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Any responsible news story would stress that, under international law, Israel's strikes were almost certainly illegal. Claims of self-defense to warrant a so-called 'preemptive strike' are extremely narrow. There must be proof of 'imminence,' of which there is not. It was 'The Daily Show,' of all places, that bothered to pull together a supercut showing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been warning of Iran's 'imminent' militarization of their nuclear supplies for 30 years. 'Iran: Weeks away from having nuclear weapons since 1995,' the comedy news show posted on X. 'Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, Israel does,' said Zeteo's Mehdi Hasan in a recent social media video, lambasting the media's continued insistence on treating Israel's acts of aggression as a victim's attempts at defense. 'It's a nuclear double standard.' The only country in the Middle East with a militarized nuclear arsenal is Israel, which has an estimated 90 to 400 warheads that it refuses to publicly acknowledge. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Meanwhile, some of the very same media hawks who most vociferously pushed lies to license the Iraq War are bolstering another illegal war of aggression against Iran, and using the same racist clash-of-civilizations logic. Popular historian Niall Ferguson, an apologist for colonialism who declared himself 'a fully paid-up member of the neoimperialist gang' after the launch of Iraq War in 2003, wrote with two co-authors in the Free Press this week that Israel's attacks on Iran were a 'blow for the good guys in Cold War II.' One of the the New York Times' prominent resident hawks, Bret Stephens, wrote a column last week praising Israel's 'courage' for doing 'what needed to be done,' given, of course, 'the millenarian mind-set of some of Iran's theocratic leaders.' Looking at the media ecosystem as a whole, though, one might get the impression that the debate is pretty evenly split over whether Trump should escalate to U.S.-led strikes on Iran. But this, too, is a distortion: The majority of Americans don't want the U.S. to conduct its own military strikes. An Economist/YouGov survey from last week found that 60 percent of all respondents oppose U.S. involvement in the war, while just 16 percent supported military action. Broken down by party affiliation, the margins largely hold even among Republicans — 53 percent of whom said they opposed military action, while 23 percent want further U.S. involvement. Of course, even the poll questions are misleading. They ask whether the U.S. should join Israel in military action, as if the two countries' military–industrial complexes are not wholly entwined already. The question should instead be about whether respondents think there should be any further involvement or U.S.-led strikes. As Cruz put it to Carlson, 'we are carrying out military strikes today.' Carlson, rightly, jumped in by reminding him of the official U.S. line that Israel is conducting strikes on its own, pushing Cruz to clarify if he was breaking the news that 'the United States government is at war with Iran right now.' While Cruz attempted to correct by saying that the U.S. is merely 'supporting' Israel, the slip revealed the undeniable U.S. complicity in all Israel's warmongering, regardless of whether Trump formally declares a U.S. military intervention. Read our complete coverage
The Intercept
2 days ago
- Business
- The Intercept
Meet the Billionaires Profiting the Most From Trump's Draconian Policies
It may come as little surprise that President Donald Trump's administration is benefitting the wealthy. Trump's plan to fund $5 trillion in tax cuts for corporations and the uber-rich relies on cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in services for working people, including Medicaid. But just how billionaires and corporate oligarchs stand to benefit from Trump's policies — namely his deportation and surveillance regime — is outlined in detail in a new report from the Center for Popular Democracy Action, the campaign arm of the nonprofit advocacy group. The usual characters won't shock anyone: major Trump campaign donors like Elon Musk (whose recent rift with Trump may not last), Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, or Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel. Trump wants to deregulate sectors from artificial intelligence to the environment and labor, and cut corporate taxes for Bezos and other billionaires. But other corporate executives are already quietly enriching themselves on Trump's policies. 'Trump's 'oligarchs' are billionaires who are attempting to control political decisions in order to increase their wealth,' the report said. Take private prison executive and millionaire George Zoley, an immigrant from Greece who founded GEO Group, the nation's biggest private prison and immigrant detention company. During an earnings call in November, Zoley, a registered Republican, said Trump's policies presented an 'unprecedented opportunity' for the company to double its services. The company has also massively expanded its work in surveillance technology to assist in deportations. Zoley's comments were prescient. GEO Group has doubled its stock value since Trump's election. The company claims to be the largest contractor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and was awarded a $1 billion contract by ICE in February to open the largest ICE detention center on the East Coast. The company runs the Louisiana immigration detention center where Mahmoud Khalil is currently being held. GEO Group is also poised to reap profits after Congress passed the Laken Riley Act. The company has received $9 million in state and local subsidies over the last 17 years. GEO Group did not respond to a request for comment. GEO Group is just one of several companies profiting off of the Trump administration's efforts to fast-track deportations and beef up surveillance capacities. Of course, companies like GEO Group, Palantir, and Amazon also saw major profits under former President Joe Biden, but Trump has opened new doors for the country's corporate oligarchs. 'Trump's presidency is a vehicle for billionaires to loot the government and line their own pockets, while working people bear the cost,' Popular Democracy co-executive directors Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper said in a statement. 'These cuts to Medicare, housing, SNAP benefits, and immigrant protections aren't accidents — they're part of a calculated scheme to turn public suffering into private profit.' The administration has emboldened corporate executives to exert their already-strong political power. More than 10 billionaires have positions in the Trump administration, and his Cabinet is the richest in history. At least seven other ultra-wealthy Trump donors and corporate executives are pulling political levers, the report notes. Blackstone co-founder and CEO Stephen Schwarzman, another major Trump donor, is pushing to ease regulations on corporations and gut protections for renters. Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks, who has fought efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices, is set to benefit from a Trump order to delay negotiations. Harold G. Hamm, founder and chair of the fossil fuel company Continental Resources, was part of Trump's transition team and has worked to advance the interests of the oil and gas industry in the White House. He has also worked closely with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who is pushing to open public lands to drilling that would benefit Hamm's company. 'In a representative democracy, elected officials are supposed to respond to the priorities and interests of the people,' the report said. 'Today, the U.S. is functioning as an oligarchy: a government where a small group of powerful, wealthy people are calling the shots.'
The Intercept
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Intercept
Congress Has One Way to Stop Trump From Going to War With Iran
As President Donald Trump draws the United States perilously close to war with Iran, some members of Congress are working across the aisle in an attempt to reign him in. On Tuesday, Representatives Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a War Powers Resolution, which would prohibit the 'United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.' Senator Tim Caine, D-Va., introduced similar legislation in the Senate on Monday. 'U.S. involvement in Israel's war with Iran is a red line. We need Congress to speak out about that and pass a resolution prohibiting that,' Rep. Khanna told The Intercept. 'And we need the United States to try to bring this war between Israel and Iran to an end.' The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, requires an act of Congress to declare a war. Over the decades, however, presidents have repeatedly ignored the federal law to deploy U.S. troops overseas without Congressional approval, ensnaring the U.S. in numerous foreign wars. Massie noted in his press release that War Powers Resolutions are privileged in the House and 'can be called up for debate and a floor vote after 15 calendar days without action in committee.' The resolution comes against a backdrop of escalating missile strikes between Israel and Iran over the last five days, beginning with Israel's attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities ahead of scheduled negotiations between the U.S. and Iranian leadership. As attacks have continued, so too have concerns about direct U.S. involvement in the conflict. On Tuesday, Trump ratcheted up those fears with a string of Truth Social posts taunting the Iranian regime and calling for its surrender. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' he wrote. 'Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured 'stuff.' Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA.' In another post, he claimed to have the location of Iran's Supreme leader. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,' Trump wrote. And in a third post, he called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' News reports emerged Tuesday afternoon that in a meeting in the White House situation room, Trump told officials he was considering joining Israel's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Even before Tuesday, lawmakers expressed concerns about the lack of clarity from the president and senior military leadership. Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth refused to offer assurances to Rep. Khanna that the U.S. would stand up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and not get dragged into the oncoming conflict. And on Monday, while leaving the Group of Seven summit in Alberta, Canada, Trump refused to answer a reporter's questions about whether the U.S. military would get involved in the war. 'I don't want to talk about that,' he told reporters. 'Even a cursory reading of the past 30 years of history in this country tells us that everything that is happening right now in this drive towards war is making all of us less safe.' Congresswoman Summer Lee D-Pa., told The Intercept that it is Congress's duty to intervene and prevent Trump from usurping their authority. 'Since taking office, Trump has continuously tried to supersede Congress and is now using the escalating crisis between Israel and Iran to justify executive overreach. Congressional authorization is not optional, and many are already opposed to being dragged into another endless war,' wrote Rep. Lee in a statement. Read our complete coverage The Pennsylvania representative also alluded to the United States' disastrous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as a reason for caution. 'The American people have been lied to before, and millions — at home and abroad — have paid the price. We cannot allow Trump or anybody else to use somebody else's war for political gain or financial profit,' said Lee. Members of Congress have previously tried to rein in the President's military efforts in the Middle East. Earlier this year, progressives sent a letter to the White House demanding that Trump explain his legal basis for strikes against Yemen. However, on Tuesday, Democratic Senator John Fetterman, also of Pennsylvania, struck a very different chord from Lee — encouraging military action against Iran and saying he would vote against Kaine's resolution. 'I'm going to vote it down… I really hope the president finally does bomb and destroy the Iranians,' Fetterman told Chad Pergram with Fox News. It marks a reversal for the Senator, who in 2022 criticized President Trump for walking away from the negotiating table with Iran. Samer Araabi, a member of the Center for Political Education's advisory committee and the Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC), said the comments from Fetterman aren't surprising. 'It's the least surprising thing from a Senator who has been so abhorrently blood chillingly deaf and blind to the situation in Palestine and totally unwilling on any level to recognize the countless war crimes that Israel continues to commit,' he said, adding, 'it would be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying.' Araabi warned that direct U.S. involvement in the war would be even worse than the invasion of Iraq, due in part to Iran's larger population and size. 'We're on the precipice of not even just another Iraq, but something that would potentially be significantly more destabilizing,' he said. U.S. military intervention on the side of Israel, Araabi said, would heighten the risk for all parties involved. 'Even a cursory reading of the past 30 years of history in this country tells us that everything that is happening right now in this drive towards war is making all of us less safe,' he said. 'It makes literally every single human being on Earth less safe. It certainly makes the Iranians less safe. It makes Israelis less safe, and it definitely makes us in the United States less safe.' Clare Bayard, a member of the Center for Political Education's Anti-War Working Group, echoed Araabi's fears about another Iraq War if the U.S. intervenes in Iran. 'We have to challenge this country's tendency towards amnesia and remember the lessons of Bush's war on Iraq,' Bayard wrote in a statement. 'The U.S.'s invasion and installation of a puppet regime, based on excuses that sound a lot like Israel's rationale for bombing Iran, resulted not only in mass death and displacement but in enduring new levels of violence for millions of people.' Nick Turse contributed reporting.
