Tuesday, April 7, 2026

“25th Amendment RIGHT NOW"

 


US Rep. Rashida Tlaib on Tuesday urged President Donald Trump’s Cabinet to immediately invoke the 25th Amendment and remove him from office following his genocidal threat to wipe out the “whole civilization” of Iran. “After bombing a school and massacring young girls, the war criminal in the White House is threatening genocide,” Tlaib (D-Mich.) wrote on social media. “It’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment. This maniac should be removed from office.”

Some of Tlaib’s colleagues echoed her demand. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote that “Trump is too unhinged, dangerous, and deranged to have the nuclear codes.” 

“25th Amendment RIGHT NOW,” Pocan added. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) said in response to Trump’s openly genocidal Truth Social post Trump “just threatened to slaughter 100 million people.”

“It’s clear he’s unfit to be president, the 25th Amendment must be invoked,” wrote Thanedar. “If Vance, Rubio, and the others continue to be spineless cowards, Congress must do everything possible to stop Trump and this war.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who led the push in the US House for a war powers resolution to stop Trump’s illegal assault on Iran, told Common Dreams that he also thought the president should be removed.

“When an American president threatens the extinction of a civilization,” said Khanna, “we should be looking to invoke the 25th and remove him if Congress is to have value and independence.”

The 25th Amendment gives the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet—or a majority of a body established by Congress—to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and remove him from the position, elevating the vice president to serve as acting president.

Given the composition of Trump’s Cabinet—which is filled with sycophants who lavish the president with praise at every opportunity—any 25th Amendment push would likely be doomed to fail.

But Trump’s Cabinet has nevertheless faced growing calls to use the tool since the president’s Easter-morning outburst warning Iranian leaders to “open the Fuckin’ Strait [of Hormuz], you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.”

Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, warned the president’s Cabinet officials on Tuesday that “if you take any part in assisting this, you too will be guilty of the crime of genocide.”

“Use the 25th Amendment now to lawfully remove Trump from office,” Williams urged. “Congress: This is an impeachable offense. Come back to DC now ready to impeach and convict Trump.”

The National Iranian American Council said in a statement that the president’s “insane, genocidal” threat to wipe out the “whole civilization” of Iran must be “wholeheartedly condemned.”

“Military leaders are not bound to follow unlawful orders, including but not limited to the destruction of civilian targets and making good on this outrageous threat,” the group added. “We call on President Trump to recant this abominable threat against 92 million Iranians. If he does not, both Congress and his Cabinet must be prepared to remove him from office via lawful means.”

-Common Dreams


Trump warns a 'whole civilization will die tonight' if a deal with Iran isn't reached

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Airstrikes hit two bridges and a train station in Iran on Tuesday, and Iranian officials urged young people to form human chains to protect power plants, as U.S. President Donald Trump warned that a "whole civilization will die tonight" if Tehran does not meet his latest deadline for the Islamic Republic to agree to a deal that includes reopening the crucial Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S. also struck military targets on the Iranian oil hub of Kharg Island, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The attack marked the second time the island was targeted. Earlier in the war, American forces struck air defenses, a radar site, an airport and a hovercraft base there, according to satellite analysis by the Institute for the Study of War and the American Enterprise Institute's Critical Threats Project.

Bottom of Form

Trump has extended previous deadlines but suggested the one set for 8 p.m. in Washington was final, and the rhetoric on both sides reached a fever pitch, leaving Iranians on edge. Trump threatened to destroy all of Iran's power plants and bridges if Tehran does not allow traffic to fully resume in the strait, through which a fifth of the world's oil transits in peacetime. Iran's president said 14 million people, including himself, have volunteered to fight.

It was not clear if the latest airstrikes were linked to Trump's threat to attack bridges. At least two of the targets were connected to Iran's rail network, which Israel earlier signaled it might attack. Israel has increasingly carried out strikes that it says are aimed at delivering a blow to Iran's economy.

Iran, meanwhile, fired on Israel and Saudi Arabia, prompting the temporary closure of a major bridge. While Iran cannot match the sophistication of U.S. and Israeli weaponry or their dominance in the air, its chokehold on the strait is causing major damage to the world economy and raising the pressure on Trump both at home and abroad to find a way out of the standoff.

Officials involved in diplomatic efforts said talks were ongoing — but Iran has rejected the latest American proposal, and it was unclear if a deal would come in time to head off Trump's threatened attacks. World leaders and experts warned that strikes as destructive as Trump threatened could constitute a war crime.

As the deadline approaches, rhetoric ramps up: "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," if a deal isn't reached, Trump said in a post Tuesday morning, while keeping open the possibility of an off-ramp, saying that "maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen."

Earlier, Iranian official Alireza Rahimi issued a video message calling on "all young people, athletes, artists, students and university students and their professors" to form human chains around power plants.

Iranians have formed human chains in the past around nuclear sites at times of heightened tensions with the West. This time though, it was unclear who would heed the call, and one major power plant in Tehran apparently had been closed off for security purposes at the time the demonstration was to start.

President Masoud Pezeshkian posted on X that 14 million Iranians had answered state media and text message campaigns urging people to volunteer to fight — and said he would join them — while a general from the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard urged parents to send their children to man checkpoints. The Guard, meanwhile, warned that Iran would "deprive the U.S. and its allies of the region's oil and gas for years" and expand its attacks across the Gulf region if Trump carries out his threat.

In Tehran, the mood was bleak. A young teacher said that many opponents of Iran's Islamic system had hoped Trump's attacks would quickly topple it. Now, as the war drags on, she fears U.S. and Israeli attacks will spread chaos. "If we don't have the internet, and if we don't have electricity, water, and gas, we're really going back to the Stone Age, as Trump said," she said told The Associated Press, speaking anonymously for her safety.

Trump's threat prompts warnings of war crimes

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot joined a growing chorus of international voices and calling for restraint, saying attacks targeting civilian and energy infrastructure "are barred by the rules of war, international law." "They would without doubt trigger a new phase of escalation, of reprisals, that would drag the region and the world economy into a vicious circle," the minister said on France Info television.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres also warned the U.S. that attacks on civilian infrastructure are banned under international law, according to his spokesperson. Such cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute, and Trump told reporters he's "not at all" concerned about committing war crimes.

-PBS

READ MORE: Experts say Trump's threats to destroy Iran's infrastructure could be considered war crime

WATCH: What international law says about Trump's threats to bomb Iran's bridges and power plants

WATCH: Trump claims Iranians 'want to hear bombs' because they want to be free

WATCH: People in Tehran on edge as Trump's deadline for Iran looms

 

A Crisis of Confidence in America

 


Trump is tearing America apart with his threats against Iran and comment that domestically, “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.” He’s also succeeded in intentionally pitting Americans of different races, religions, and across the rural/urban divide against each other.

As Michael Corthell noted on the Essay X² Substack: “There was a time when Americans expected political leadership to involve sobriety, judgment, and at least a passing acquaintance with reality. That time now feels like one of those lost civilizations historians whisper about, somewhere between Atlantis and the Republican Party of 1956.”

While it’s worked to the advantage of the GOP, the fossil fuel and private prison industries, and the billionaire class for four decades or more, it’s extraordinarily dangerous to our nation and our children’s future.

That’s because a society can’t function when its people don’t have faith in its institutions, and it’s even more of a challenge for a democracy, a form of government which only exists “by the consent of the governed.” When people lose faith in their nation’s institutions, the result is both social and political chaos much like America is experiencing right now.

I saw this over and over again when doing international relief work back in the 1980s and 1990s: in failed and failing states, people not only distrusted their governments, but were openly disdainful of them and their elected and bureaucratic officials.

Out of that distrust grew a plethora of conspiracy theories that tried to explain why things got so bad, and those often led to political violence (I saw this in Haiti and Colombia), authoritarian takeover (I witnessed this working in Russia) and, in two cases where I worked (Sudan and Uganda), actual civil wars.

America is now going through something similar. For example, prior to Reagan’s presidency, 73% of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do the right thing “just about always” or “most of the time.” Pew found in 2024 that 85% of Americans said most elected officials “don’t care” what people like them think, and only 4% said the political system is working “extremely” or “very” well.

That’s absolutely unsustainable without radical change.

We’re also experiencing a crisis of confidence in America internationally, as nations that were formerly allies across the planet are now openly questioning whether they can ever again trust us after all the betrayals, trash-talking, and Putin-fluffing coming from Trump and his lickspittles.

Tariffs, destroying USAID, and silencing The Voice of America have devastated our soft power and credibility around the world, moving dozens of countries away from us and toward mostly China and Russia.

All of which raises the question: How did we get here and how do we get out of this mess? Three factors that burst onto the scene in a big way in the 1960s led us to the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, which brought us to today’s crisis.

— The first was the invention of neoliberalism in the 1940s, as I lay out in my book The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America.
— This was followed by the creation of the Libertarian Party a few decades later as a lobbying vehicle against rent control by the real estate lobby.
— And, finally, in the 1980s a handful of fossil fuel billionaires jumping into politics to fund think tanks, media, and politicians who’d preach the doctrine that, as Reagan famously said, ”Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Prior to these interventions, the New Deal consensus had brought Americans together around the idea that the purpose of government was, to quote the Constitution’s Preamble: “[T]o form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Neoliberals, Libertarians, and rightwing Petro billionaires like David Koch (who ran for VP in 1980 on a ticket of shutting down pretty much all domestic spending, presaging Trump’s recent rant that the only legitimate function of government is to run the military) all began the refrain that government is essentially evil, because they all objected to paying taxes to “promote the general Welfare,” or losing profits to regulations that prevented harms to workers and average Americans.

An army of sycophants and spokesmen was mobilized from William F. Buckley to Rush Limbaugh to the “stars” of Fox “News” and its imitators. Soon, the word spread. As Limbaugh used to joke, social programs were actually evil because: “What do you do for a man when he’s down? You kick him! Otherwise, he’ll never get up!”

Men with wealth beyond the imaginings of Midas were telling average white working Americans that it wasn’t the GOP’s tax cuts and Republicans’ destruction of unions that crushed them, but brown-skinned immigrants, women, and Black people who wanted to “steal” their jobs, invade their homes, and rape their daughters.

The foundation of Trump’s 2024 campaign was the ad repeated on loop asserting that Kamala Harris wanted government to pay for trans surgery for people in prison. Don’t think about being robbed by billionaires; there are queer people out there who just want to live their own lives!

By the end of the George W. Bush presidency (and his and Cheney’s lies that led us into bloody quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq), most Americans had decided they couldn’t believe or trust our government. Then Trump came along and, presumably on Putin’s orders, told the world that we couldn’t be trusted internationally, either.

Just like with domestic politics, our nation can’t effectively function internationally if other nations also don’t have faith in our institutions. The Reagan Revolution, Donald Trump, and the Republican Party have destroyed both our faith and the world’s faith in the institutions of America and thus put our democracy at serious peril.

Part of that peril is that Donald Trump is now threatening to turn America into an “illiberal democracy” police state with rigged elections like Russia and Hungary. And it’s Americans’ cynicism that is his main weapon.

As John Mac Ghlionn wrote this week for The Hill about how hard a serious recession could hit Americans: “The cultural confidence that once carried societies through genuine hardship – the belief that sacrifice was worth something, that tomorrow warranted patience – has faded into a nihilism that is difficult to condemn in people who arrived at it honestly. “A society that still believes in endurance can survive contraction. A society built entirely on consumption faces a harder test.”

The solution is straightforward, and it appears we’re moving quickly in that direction, just like we did in 1932 as we woke up and chose to move out of the Republican Great Depression.

First, Americans must realize that these nihilistic ideologies promoted by billionaires and massive, monopolistic corporations are grounded in lies. We’re not a society of selfish individual consumers driven primarily by greed; we’ve historically been here for each other, and that’s why our government was first formed. It worked best during the 1933-1981 New Deal era, when the Middle Class went from around 10% of us up to around two-thirds of us. And it was crippled by the Reagan Revolution, which has cut it down to around 43% of us.

Second, the Democratic Party needs to re-embrace the social and economic goals of the New Deal and Great Society that brought us Social Security, the minimum wage, Medicare, Medicaid, free and cheap college, etc., etc. Put “we, the people” first and again restrain the toxic impulses of billionaires and corporations through appropriate taxation and regulation.

And third, we must repudiate the GOP’s corrupt ideology at the polls this fall and bring into office a new generation of FDR-style progressives who are committed to undoing Reagan’s, Bush’s, Musk’s and Trump’s damage and rebuilding American institutions, so they’ll once again work for the average family. It may seem like a big lift, but more and more Americans are waking up to the Great Grift billionaires and their Republican toadies have been running on us for the past half-century. A new America is possible!

The Hartmann Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

84% of Democrats and 55% of Independents Support Impeaching Trump a Third Time

 


After just 14 months of President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, polling released Monday found that a majority of likely US voters support impeaching him a historic third time—which one pollster called “an unprecedented result this early in a presidential term.”

Lake Research Partners conducted the poll March 26-30 for Free Speech for People, a legal advocacy organization that has launched a campaign to “Impeach Trump. Again.” As part of that effort, FSFP gathered more than 1 million supportive signatures ahead of the latest “No Kings” rallies and has publicly detailed over 25 grounds for impeachment.

First on that list is that “in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East, Trump is abusing his role as commander of the US military to commit atrocities that violate US and international law.” 

The president notably spent the weekend threatening to commit more war crimes in Iran if it doesn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all ship traffic—which it only closed in response to the joint Israel-US attack on February 28.

Another key argument for impeachment on the FSFP list is that “Trump has militarized and weaponized federal law enforcement, particularly US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to punish the opposition party, disrupt local communities, instill fear in the civilian population, and quell lawful political dissent.”

Pollsters noted both of those grounds in their question, asking respondents: “Several members of Congress have recently come out in support of impeaching President Donald Trump for violating Americans’ constitutional rights and the law, including actions by ICE in the US and the war he started with Iran. Do you support or oppose President Trump being impeached?”

Overall, 52% of all voters said they support impeachment, including 84% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and even 14% of Republicans. Just 40% opposed, including 8% of Democrats, 34% of Independents, and 81% of Republicans. 

“The result is quite striking,” David Mermin of Lake Research Partners said in a call with reporters. “It’s a clear majority. It’s a solid majority. And it reaches across all demographics and across partisan lines as well.”

The 800 respondents represented a variety of perspectives in terms of age, gender, racial identity, education, region, and partisanship. The margin of error is +/-3.5%. Putting the finding in a historical context, Mermin noted that there were majorities in favor of impeachment in the mid-1970s, when then-President Richard Nixon was approaching impeachment and then resigned, well into his second term. Nearly a quarter-century later, during the proceeding that led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, “most of that period, we did not see majorities in favor of impeaching him, even during that process,” the pollster explained.

“For President Trump, in his first term, there were two impeachment proceedings against him, and in the first one, near the end of 2019... some of the polls disagreed, but there were some polls showing him slightly about 50% approval of impeachment,” he continued. “And then the second proceeding that happened after the January 6th coup attempt, there was a clear majority... during those last few weeks of his term prior to his when he left office in January of 2021.”

As with Clinton, the House of Representatives impeached Trump, but the Senate declined to convict him. Now, both chambers of Congress are narrowly controlled by Republicans who have demonstrated an unwillingness to stand up to the president—including by refusing to advance war powers resolutions challenging his various unauthorized military actions abroad.

Mermin said that “this appears to be the earliest in a presidential term that you’ve seen a majority of Americans in favor of impeachment.” FSFP co-founder and president John Bonifaz highlighted that the polling comes when there is not even an impeachment proceeding in the House. Since Trump’s return to office last year, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas) have introduced articles of impeachment against him, though those efforts have not gone anywhere. 

However, in the lead-up to the November midterm elections, even Trump has acknowledged that Democrats winning congressional races could lead to him being impeached a third time. “You gotta win the midterms, ‘cause if we don’t win the midterms... they’ll find a reason to impeach me,” Trump told Republicans in January. “I’ll get impeached.”

The new survey shows even higher figures for disapproval of Trump’s job performance: 57% of all voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing, including 92% of Democrats, 56% of Independents, and 16% of Republicans.

Bonifaz said that “this poll confirms what we are seeing across the country: The American people understand that Donald Trump poses a direct threat to our Constitution and to the rule of law and must be impeached and removed from public office.”

-Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams

 

Monday, April 6, 2026

Trump’s Vulgar Iran Post Raises Alarm: “A Deeply Unwell Man”

 


President Donald Trump drew a wave of backlash on Easter Sunday after posting an expletive-laced ultimatum to Iran that threatened strikes on the country’s power plants and bridges if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime chokepoint for global energy shipments, amid the ongoing war.

The post quickly dominated political reaction in Washington, with critics warning the language could escalate the conflict and raise fresh concerns about whether the U.S. is signaling attacks on civilian infrastructure.

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F*****’ Strait, you crazy b*******, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The post and the blowback to it partly overshadowed the widely hailed Saturday rescue of a missing U.S. airman in Iran and the reaction to that earlier on Sunday, which drew praise from both sides of the aisle. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Among Republican lawmakers allied with the president, there was little direct comment on the post itself. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who pushed for the Iran war, wrote of Trump on Sunday on X: “He is deadly serious when it comes to his ultimatum to Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz or face a massive military response against vital infrastructure.”

Far‑right political activist Laura Loomer, who has a history of anti‑Muslim remarks, wrote: “This is what I voted for. Bomb jihadis back to the Stone Age where their mentality permanently lives. Trump said he’s going to bomb their infrastructure in Iran, and then he said ‘Praise be to Allah’. On Easter. Amazing. Just amazing. Strategic bombing wins wars.”

‘Threatening Possible War Crimes’

The backlash to Trump’s post was swift on X. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, described the post as the president “ranting like an unhinged madman on social media” as Americans “head off to church and celebrate with friends and family.” 

Schumer warned Trump was “threatening possible war crimes and alienating allies.”

Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, also condemned the message, calling it “the ravings of a dangerous and mentally unbalanced individual” and urging Congress to act to end the war.

Trump’s estranged niece, Mary Trump, wrote: “It’s not that Donald sent this as awful as it is; it’s that nobody felt they could stop him or, worse, nobody thought they should.”

Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, responded simply: “Threatening war crimes. Unhinged, clueless, and embarrassing.”

Senator Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, wrote: “This is a deeply unwell man on a dangerous power trip, threatening possible war crimes. This is not how the President of the United States should be speaking about sending our servicemembers into harm’s way. Republicans should join Democrats to end this war immediately.”

President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1 in Washington, DC.

‘A National Security Threat to Our Country’

Some lawmakers responded by bringing up the 25th Amendment, which allows a Cabinet to remove the president from office, and replace him with the vice president, under certain conditions. 

“If I were in Trump’s Cabinet, I would spend Easter calling constitutional lawyers about the 25th Amendment,” Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, wrote on X. “This is completely, utterly unhinged. He’s already killed thousands. He’s going to kill thousands more.”

Representative Yassamin Ansari, an Arizona Democrat, similarly posted: “The 25th Amendment exists for a reason. The President of the United States is a deranged lunatic, and a national security threat to our country and the rest of the world.”

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican who was once a Trump ally, also criticized his post, writing to administration officials on X: “I know all of you and him and he has gone insane, and all of you are complicit.”

Politically, the backlash signals that arguments about the war’s legality, proportionality, and congressional oversight are likely to intensify—especially as lawmakers point to potential humanitarian impacts and the risk of widening the conflict.

-Steve Mollman, NewsBreak


A brief history of how decades of mistrust and bad blood led to open warfare between the US and Iran

 


With U.S. bombs raining down on Iran and Tehran’s leaders responding by hitting targets across the Persian Gulf and restricting transit through the Strait of Hormuz, it is fair to suggest that the present moment represents a low in relations between the two countries.

But the bad blood isn’t new: The U.S. and Iran have been in conflict for decades – at least since the U.S. helped overthrow a democracy-minded prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in August 1953. The U.S. then supported the long, repressive reign of the Shah of Iran, whose security services brutalized Iranian citizens for decades. The two countries have been particularly hostile to each other since Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, resulting in economic sanctions and the severing of formal diplomatic relations between the nations.

Since 1984, the U.S. State Department has listed Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” alleging the Iranian government provides terrorists with training, money and weapons. Some of the major events in U.S.-Iran relations highlight the differences between the nations’ views, but others arguably presented real opportunities for reconciliation.

1953: US overthrows Mossadegh

In 1951, the Iranian Parliament chose a new prime minister, Mossadegh, who then led lawmakers to vote in favor of taking over the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, expelling the company’s British owners and saying they wanted to turn oil profits into investments in the Iranian people. The U.S. feared disruption in the global oil supply and worried about Iran falling prey to Soviet influence. The British feared the loss of cheap Iranian oil.

President Dwight Eisenhower decided it was best for the U.S. and the U.K. to get rid of Mossadegh. Operation Ajax, a joint CIA-British operation, convinced the Shah of Iran, the country’s monarch, to dismiss Mossadegh and drive him from office by force. Mossadegh was replaced by a much more Western-friendly prime minister, handpicked by the CIA.

Demonstrators in Tehran demand the establishment of an Islamic republic. AP Photo/Saris

1979: Revolutionaries oust the shah, take hostages

After more than 25 years of relative stability in U.S.-Iran relations, the Iranian public had grown unhappy with the social and economic conditions that developed under the dictatorial rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Pahlavi enriched himself and used American aid to fund the military while many Iranians lived in poverty. Dissent was often violently quashed by SAVAK, the shah’s security service. In January 1979, the shah left Iran, ostensibly to seek cancer treatment. Two weeks later, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in Iraq and led a drive to abolish the monarchy and proclaim an Islamic government.

Iranian students at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran show a blindfolded American hostage to the crowd in November 1979. AP Photo

In October 1979, President Jimmy Carter agreed to allow the shah to come to the U.S. to seek advanced medical treatment. Outraged Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, taking 52 Americans hostage. That convinced Carter to sever U.S. diplomatic relations with Iran on April 7, 1980.

Two weeks later, the U.S. military launched a mission to rescue the hostages, but it failed, with aircraft crashes killing eight U.S. servicemembers.

The shah died in Egypt in July 1980, but the hostages weren’t released until Jan. 20, 1981, after 444 days of captivity.

Two people stand in a field wearing gas masks.

An Iranian cleric, left, and an Iranian soldier wear gas masks to protect themselves against Iraqi chemical weapons attacks in May 1988. Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

1980-1988: US tacitly sides with Iraq

In September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, an escalation of the two countries’ regional rivalry and religious differences: Iraq was governed by Sunni Muslims but had a Shia Muslim majority population; Iran was led and populated mostly by Shiites.

The U.S. was concerned that the conflict would limit the flow of Middle Eastern oil and wanted to ensure the conflict didn’t affect its close ally, Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. supported Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in his fight against the anti-American Iranian regime. As a result, the U.S. mostly turned a blind eye toward Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran.

U.S. officials moderated their usual opposition to those illegal and inhumane weapons because the U.S. State Department did not “wish to play into Iran’s hands by fueling its propaganda against Iraq.” In 1988, the war ended in a stalemate. More than 500,000 military and 100,000 civilians died.

1981-1986: US secretly sells weapons to Iran

The U.S. imposed an arms embargo after Iran was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984. That left the Iranian military, in the middle of its war with Iraq, desperate for weapons and aircraft and vehicle parts to keep fighting.

The Reagan administration decided that the embargo would likely push Iran to seek support from the Soviet Union, the U.S.’s Cold War rival. Rather than formally end the embargo, U.S. officials agreed to secretly sell weapons to Iran starting in 1981.

The last shipment, of anti-tank missiles, was in October 1986. In November 1986, a Lebanese magazine exposed the deal. That revelation sparked the Iran-Contra scandal in the U.S., with Reagan’s officials found to have collected money from Iran for the weapons and illegally sent those funds to anti-socialist rebels – the Contras – in Nicaragua.

At a mass funeral for 76 of the 290 people killed in the shootdown of Iran Air 655, mourners hold up a sign depicting the incident. AP Photo/CP/Mohammad Sayyad

1988: US Navy shoots down Iran Air flight 655

On the morning of July 8, 1988, the USS Vincennes, a guided missile cruiser patrolling in the international waters of the Persian Gulf, entered Iranian territorial waters while in a skirmish with Iranian gunboats.

Either during or just after that exchange of gunfire, the Vincennes crew mistook a passing civilian Airbus passenger jet for an Iranian F-14 fighter. They shot it down, killing all 290 people aboard. The U.S. called it a “tragic and regrettable accident,” but Iran believed the plane’s downing was intentional. In 1996, the U.S. agreed to pay US$131.8 million in compensation to Iran.

1997-1998: The US seeks contact

In August 1997, a moderate reformer, Mohammad Khatami, won Iran’s presidential election. U.S. President Bill Clinton sensed an opportunity. He sent a message to Tehran through the Swiss ambassador there, proposing direct government-to-government talks.

Shortly thereafter, in early January 1998, Khatami gave an interview to CNN in which he expressed “respect for the great American people,” denounced terrorism and recommended an “exchange of professors, writers, scholars, artists, journalists and tourists” between the United States and Iran.

However, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei didn’t agree, so not much came of the mutual overtures as Clinton’s time in office came to an end. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush characterized Iran, Iraq and North Korea as constituting an “Axis of Evil” supporting terrorism and pursuing weapons of mass destruction, straining relations even further.

Technicians enriched uranium inside these buildings at the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran. AP Photo/Vahid Salemi

2002: Iran’s nuclear program raises alarm

In August 2002, an exiled rebel group announced that Iran had been secretly working on nuclear weapons at two installations that had not previously been publicly revealed. That was a violation of the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran had signed, requiring countries to disclose their nuclear-related facilities to international inspectors. One of those formerly secret locations, Natanz, housed centrifuges for enriching uranium, which could be used in civilian nuclear reactors or enriched further for weapons.

Starting in roughly 2005, U.S. and Israeli government cyberattacks together reportedly targeted the Natanz centrifuges with a custom-made piece of malicious software that became known as Stuxnet. That effort, which slowed down Iran’s nuclear program was one of many U.S. and international attempts – mostly unsuccessful – to curtail Iran’s progress toward building a nuclear bomb.

2003: Iran writes to Bush administration

An excerpt of the document sent from Iran, via the Swiss government, to the U.S. State Department in 2003 appears to seek talks between the U.S. and Iran. Washington Post via Scribd

In May 2003, senior Iranian officials quietly contacted the State Department through the Swiss embassy in Iran, seeking “a dialogue ‘in mutual respect,’” addressing four big issues: nuclear weapons, terrorism, Palestinian resistance and stability in Iraq.

Hardliners in the Bush administration weren’t interested in any major reconciliation, though Secretary of State Colin Powell favored dialogue and other officials had met with Iran about al-Qaida. When Iranian hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran in 2005, the opportunity died. The following year, Ahmadinejad made his own overture to Washington in an 18-page letter to President Bush. The letter was widely dismissed; a senior State Department official told me in profane terms that it amounted to nothing.

Representatives of several nations met in Vienna in July 2015 to finalize the Iran nuclear deal. Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs/Flickr

2015: Iran nuclear deal signed

After a decade of unsuccessful attempts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Obama administration undertook a direct diplomatic approach beginning in 2013. Two years of secret, direct negotiations initially bilaterally between the U.S. and Iran and later with other nuclear powers culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, often called the Iran nuclear deal.

Iran, the U.S., China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom signed the deal in 2015. It severely limited Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and mandated that international inspectors monitor and enforce Iran’s compliance with the agreement.

In return, Iran was granted relief from international and U.S. economic sanctions. Though the inspectors regularly certified that Iran was abiding by the agreement’s terms, President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement in May 2018.

2020: US drones kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani

On Jan. 3, 2020, an American drone fired a missile that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force. Analysts considered Soleimani the second most powerful man in Iran, after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. At the time, the Trump administration asserted that Soleimani was directing an imminent attack against U.S. assets in the region, but officials have not provided clear evidence to support that claim. Iran responded by launching ballistic missiles that hit two American bases in Iraq.

A large billboard seen at night has a man's face on.

A billboard featuring a portrait of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images

2023: The Oct. 7 attacks on Israel

Hamas’ brazen attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, provoked a fearsome militarized response from Israel that continues today and served to severely weaken Iran’s proxies in the region, especially Hamas – the perpetrator of the attacks – and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

2025: Trump 2.0 and Iran

Trump initially saw an opportunity to forge a new nuclear deal with Iran and to pursue other business deals with Tehran. Once inaugurated for his second term, Trump appointed Steve Witkoff, a real estate investor who is the president’s friend, to serve as special envoy for the Middle East and to lead negotiations.

Negotiations for a nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran began in April, but the countries did not reach a deal. They were planning a new round of talks when Israel struck Iran with a series of airstrikes on June 13, forcing the White House to reconsider is position.

On June 22, in the early morning hours, the U.S. chose to act decisively in an attempt to cripple Iran’s nuclear capacity, bombing three nuclear sites and causing what Pentagon officials called “severe damage.” The war lasted 12 days, during which Trump declared that Iranian nuclear sites had been “totally obliterated” – a claim denied by Tehran.

2026: Simmering conflict turns into hot war

In early 2026, successive rounds of indirect talks took place between Iran and representatives from the U.S. administration. They followed major unrest in Iran during which Trump told protesters that “help is on its way.” Then, on Feb. 28, the U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran in an operation the U.S. called “Epic Fury.” In the initial wave of airstrikes, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior members of the Islamic Republic were killed. Tehran responded by hitting targets across the Gulf, turning the conflict into a wider, regional affair.

The Conversation. This is an updated version of a story originally published on June 17, 2025.

 

“The American president has lost his mind"

 


Easter Sunday, President Donald J. Trump’s social media account posted: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F*ckin’ Strait, you crazy b*stards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

There are many things that could be going on with this ultimatum, which actually doesn’t sound like Trump’s usual style, in the same way the post of yesterday morning didn’t. The post appears to be threatening to commit war crimes by attacking civilian infrastructure, and it appears to suggest Trump is considering using tactical nuclear weapons. He emphasized the production of such weapons in his first administration. 

He seemed to encourage this interpretation in an interview with Rachel Scott of ABC News today. She said Trump “told me the conflict should be over in days, not weeks but if no deal is made, he’s blowing up the whole country with ‘very little’ off the table. ‘If [it] happens, it happens. And if it doesn’t, we’re blowing up the whole country,’ he said. I asked if there’s anything off limits. ‘Very little,’ he said.”

In 2023 a book by New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt alleged that in 2017, when Trump was warning North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on social media that North Korea would be “met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before,” behind closed doors he was talking about launching a preemptive strike against North Korea and of using a nuclear weapon against the country and blaming someone else for the strike.

Schmidt reports that Trump’s White House chief of staff at the time, retired U.S. Marine Corps General John Kelly, brought military leaders to try to explain to Trump why that would be a bad idea and finally got him to move away from the plan by telling him he could prove he was the “greatest salesman in the world” by finding a diplomatic solution to his fight with the North Korean leader.

In his own book about that period, journalist Bob Woodward wrote: “The American people had little idea that July through September of 2017 had been so dangerous.” But Trump’s secretary of state Mike Pompeo told Woodward: “We never knew whether it was real or whether it was a bluff.” And that is another way to look at the post from Trump’s social media account: that he is panicked that he has not been able to bully other countries into fixing the mess he created by attacking Iran and precipitating the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and is now simply trying to bully Iran. 

In The Guardian last Monday, Sidney Blumenthal noted that Trump “has declared ‘victory’ more than eight times,” says he has “won” more than ten times, and said Iranian forces have been “obliterated” or suffered “obliteration” more than six times. Blumenthal noted Trump is now threatening to “obliterate” Iran’s power grid and has used the words “decimate” or “decimation” at least six times.

Trump’s crazy post does, after all, push back yet again the deadline for his threats to rain destruction on Iran, which he then extended again in another post at 12:38 P.M. saying: “Tuesday, 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time!”

This dynamic was not lost on Allison Gill of Mueller, She Wrote, who noted: “It was March 23rd. Then March 27th. Then March 30th. Then he gave that weird address on April 1st. [N]ew deadline April 4th. Then April 6th at 7 AM. Then April 7th at 8 PM. And now another address tomorrow at 1 PM. The chaos is intentional.” She also noted that his deadlines and his abandonment of them often seem tied to the rhythms of the stock market.

In an interview with Barak Ravid of Axios today shortly after this morning’s post, Trump reiterated that “if they don’t make a deal, I am blowing up everything over there” but also said the U.S. is “in deep negotiations” with Iran and that he thinks a deal can be reached. Trump told Ravid that his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—not Secretary of State Marco Rubio—are talking with the Iranians. Sources told Ravid that mediators from Pakistan, Egypt, and Türkiye are facilitating the talks.

But Iranian officials are refusing to deal with Witkoff and Kushner after they apparently misunderstood earlier negotiations and instead told Trump the talks weren’t going well before he launched strikes. Neither Witkoff nor Kushner is a trained diplomat, and both have deep financial ties to the Middle East. Notably, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), who urged Trump to start the Iran war, has invested at least $2 billion in Kushner’s private equity firm.

On March 13, Rob Copeland and Maureen Farrell of the New York Times reported that Kushner is trying to raise $5 billion or more for his private equity firm from Middle East governments at the same time as he is also supposed to be negotiating peace in the region.

But Stephen Kalin, Eliot Brown, and Summer Said of the Wall Street Journal reported today that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has already cost the Saudis about $10 billion, and the grand plans of MBS were already falling short of money. Some of those plans were U.S. investments. The reporters note that even before the war, the Saudi’s sovereign-wealth fund, the same one that invested in Kushner’s private equity firm, had sold much of its U.S. stock portfolio. Last year, MBS promised to invest up to $1 trillion in the U.S. Those investments are now under review.

Regardless of the inspiration for Trump’s post, by itself it tells a very clear story. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former assistant director for counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi posted: “The American president has lost his mind.” Journalist Steven Beschloss wrote: “This is an actual post. This is not funny. This is beyond desperate. This is a deeply unwell man who doesn’t belong anywhere near the levers of power. Every member of his cabinet and Congress is complicit in not demanding his removal now.”

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) posted: “If I were in Trump’s Cabinet, I would spend Easter calling constitutional lawyers about the 25th Amendment. This is completely, utterly unhinged. He’s already killed thousands. He’s going to kill thousands more.”

The 25th Amendment establishes a process through which a majority of the Cabinet and the Vice President, or another body Congress designates, can remove a president deemed “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Murphy was not the only one thinking along those lines. Hollie Silverman of Newsweek reported that on the prediction market platform Kalshi, which allows traders to buy “yes” or “no” shares on the question “Will the 25th Amendment be used during Trump’s presidency?” “yes” has moved in recent days from 28.6% to 35.1%.

—Heather Cox Richardson


Donald Trump has faced sharp criticism after threatening to wipe out Iran’s power plants and bridges in an expletive-riddled social media post yesterday.

The US president told Iran they would “be living in Hell” if they didn’t open the strait of Hormuz. He separately suggested there was a “good chance” of an agreement to end the five-week war today telling US media that negotiations were happening.

Trump’s post drew criticism from Capitol Hill. Chuck Schumer, a senior Senate Democrat, said: “The president of the United States is ranting like an unhinged madman on social media … He’s threatening possible war crimes and alienating allies. This is who he is, but this is not who we are. Our country deserves so much better.”

How has Iran reacted? Iran’s parliament speaker responded with a warning that the US president’s “reckless moves” would mean “our whole region is going to burn”.

This is a developing story. Follow the liveblog here.

-The Guardian