|
We Say to the Military Industrial Complex We Will Not Continue to Spend $700 Billion Per Year on War |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38626"><span class="small">Tim Hains, RealClearPolitics</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 28 May 2019 08:45 |
|
Hains writes: "At a campaign rally Saturday in Burlington, Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders outlined his anti-war foreign policy, saying: 'I make no apologies for trying to do everything that I can to make sure this country does not get into another war in the Middle East.'"
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Joshua Lott/Reuters)

We Say to the Military Industrial Complex We Will Not Continue to Spend $700 Billion Per Year on War
By Tim Hains, RealClearPolitics
28 May 19
t a campaign rally Saturday in Burlington, Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders outlined his anti-war foreign policy, saying: "I make no apologies for trying to do everything that I can to make sure this country does not get into another war in the Middle East."
"Recently I have been attacked in the media because of my views, actions, and votes on foreign policy issues," Sanders said. "So let me be as clear as I can be. Yes, as a young man, along with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and others, I marched against the war in Vietnam... As a member of the House of Representatives, I helped lead the opposition to the war in Iraq... As a member of the Senate recently, I am proud to have been the lead sponsor on a resolution that, for the first time in 45 years, utilized the War Powers Act to get a majority vote in the House and the Senate to get the United States out of the horrific Saudi-led intervention in Yemen... And finally, right now, this minute, I am doing everything that I can, working, by the way, with some honest conservatives in the Senate, to prevent Donald Trump and John Bolton from taking us into a war in Iran."
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: But it's not just Wall Street and the drug companies and the insurance companies. And let me say a word about something that very few people talk about. And that is we need to take on the Military Industrial Complex.
And we say to the Military Industrial Complex that we will not continue to spend $700 billion a year on the military. We want and need a strong defense. But we do not have to spend more than the next 10 nations combined.
We are going to invest in education. We are going to invest in affordable housing. We are going to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. But we are not going to invest in never-ending wars.
And while we are on military policy, let me say a word about foreign policy, because they are obviously interrelated. Now, recently I have been attacked in the media because of my views, actions and votes on foreign policy issues.
So let me be as clear as I can be. Yes, as a young man, along with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and others, I marched against the war in Vietnam.
A war which ravaged my generation, which left 59,000 brave young Americans dead, as well as killing over a million Vietnamese people. I make no apologies for having opposed that war.
As a member of the House of Representatives, I helped lead the opposition to the war in Iraq.
I did not believe Dick Cheney or John Bolton or President Bush and others when they told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that we had to invade that country.
The war in Iraq turned out to be the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of our country and has led to the destabilization of that entire region, with more war, more death, and more suffering. I make no apology for leading the effort against the war in Iraq.
As a member of the Senate recently, I am proud to have been the lead sponsor on a resolution that, for the first time in 45 years, utilized the War Powers Act to get a majority vote in the House and the Senate to get the United States out of the horrific Saudi-led intervention in Yemen.
A war that is unauthorized and a war that is unconstitutional. Frankly, if we do not end that war soon, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, according to the U.N., will die this year in Yemen. And millions more will face starvation in years to come. I make no apologies to anyone for trying to end that horrible war.
And finally, right now, this minute, I am doing everything that I can, working, by the way, with some honest conservatives in the Senate, to prevent Donald Trump and John Bolton from taking us into a war in Iran.
A war which would be, in my view, much more destructive, if you can believe it, than the war in Iraq, and could lead us, literally, to perpetual warfare in that region, that not only this generation of members of the armed forces would be there, but their kids and their kids. So I make no apologies for trying to do everything that I can to make sure this country does not get into another war in the Middle East.
Watch the speech here.

|
|
Dockworkers Show Us How Unions Can Be a Powerful Force Against Racism |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50869"><span class="small">Peter Cole, In These Times</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 28 May 2019 08:39 |
|
Cole writes: "From its inception in the 1930s, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), and particularly its San Francisco Bay Area chapter, Local 10, have preached and practiced racial equality."
The Local 10 Drill Team, 1972. (photo: Captain Josh Williams/ILWU Archives)

Dockworkers Show Us How Unions Can Be a Powerful Force Against Racism
By Peter Cole, In These Times
28 May 19
rom its inception in the 1930s, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), and particularly its San Francisco Bay Area chapter, Local 10, have preached and practiced racial equality. First, the union committed itself to equality by desegregating work gangs and openings its ranks to African Americans, whose numbers drastically increased during the World War II-induced Great Migration. In addition to working towards racial equality inside the ILWU, longshoremen and their leaders, in Local 10 and at the international level, participated in myriad intersectional social movements from the 1940s to the present. Thanks to this organizing, longshore workers and their union greatly contributed to the growth and success of social movements in a pivotal time in Bay Area, U.S. and world history.
An early, poignant example of the union’s commitment to ethnic and racial equality came in its principled yet highly controversial opposition to the persecution of Japanese Americans during World War II. In 1942 the ILWU condemned the interment of 125,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans, ordered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after the surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawai’i. Hostility towards Japanese immigrants (by law, never allowed to become U.S. citizens) and Japanese Americans quickly reached fever pitch, and almost no Americans came to their defense though, more recently, most acknowledge the trampling of their Constitutional rights. Yet in sworn testimony before Congress in February 1942, only three months after Pearl Harbor, ILWU leader Lou Goldblatt sagely predicted, “this entire episode of hysteria and mob chant against the native-born Japanese will form a dark page of American history. It may well appear as one of the victories one by the Axis powers.” Similarly, in May 1945, the month Germany surrendered and three months before Japan did, ILWU International President Harry Bridges pushed to have a few Japanese Americans, interned for most of the war, admitted to the Stockton division of Local 6 (Bay Area warehouse) in conjunction with the government’s War Relocation Authority. When the white majority division refused to allow them into the union, Bridges and Goldblatt pulled the charter until the 700 members accepted this Japanese American into the local. The union’s commitment to equality for Japanese Americans was rare, to say the least, and remains largely unknown.
The ILWU has also been committed to and fought for racial equality since its birth in the 1930s. This sort of activism, still all-too-rare, is called civil rights unionism or social movement unionism. Examples of how the ILWU worked in solidarity with the largely Southern-based black freedom struggle are too numerous to recount, but the union’s commitment was real and long-standing. Bridges regularly wrote in favor of racial equality in his column “On the Beam” that appeared in the union’s newspaper, Dispatcher. In 1954 after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic ruling against Jim Crow segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, Bridges lauded it as “a victory for all decent and progressive Americans—whether Negro, white or any other color,” because the Jim Crow “system has been a cancer on America.”
In 1963, the ILWU began selling units in the housing cooperative that its progressive leaders conceived of and financed as a response to “urban redevelopment” and a lack of affordable housing. Though not the first of its kind (several clothing worker unions in New York City constructed thousands of such units), the St. Francis Square Housing Cooperative was the Bay Area’s first. Beginning in 1960, the ILWU invested some of its pension funds into property that had been part of a 45-block area cleared, notoriously, by city and federal housing agencies in a move criticized by the legendary African American writer and activist, James Baldwin: “urban renewal which means moving Negroes out; it means Negro removal.” The “redevelopment” of the Fillmore (also called the Western Addition) and the city’s largest black neighborhood, began in the 1950s and continued into the early 1970s, razed about 2,500 Victorian structures and displaced more than 10,000 people—overwhelmingly African Americans including hundreds of ILWU Local 6 and 10 members. ILWU Secretary-Treasurer Lou Goldblatt explained why he developed this project in 1979: “what they were not doing was replacing the slums with anything that any of the people who had lived there could have any chance under the sun of coming back to.” St. Francis’ 300-units were open to every ethnicity and race, the first integrated housing development in SF, and its first manager was Revels Cayton, a black left-wing activist and ILWU member. ILWU members who lived in the Fillmore continued resisting further clearings, albeit with limited success. Ultimately, the character of the Fillmore changed forever with far fewer blacks. The co-op, though, recently celebrated its 50th anniversary.
Also in 1963, the ILWU and Local 10 helped organize a huge civil rights demonstration in San Francisco and supported another, the legendary March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Early that year, the nation’s eyes focused upon Birmingham, Alabama, nicknamed “America’s Johannesburg” for being the most segregated big city in the South. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, headed by Martin Luther King, Jr., collaborated with local activists for several months of nonviolent civil disobedience to highlight the persistence of racial segregation, nearly ten years after Brown v. Board. Chester, utilizing his many contacts helped create the Church-Labor Conference that, on May 26th, brought together 20,000 people to march with a giant banner reading “We March in Unity for Freedom in Birmingham and Equality in San Francisco.” An additional 10,000 joined at the march’s end to rally, and was the largest civil rights demonstration in the region’s history. Three months later, the ILWU donated money and sent a delegation to the nation’s capital for what proved to be the largest political gathering in U.S. History, up to that time. One quarter of a million Americans, mostly black but with many whites, participated in the March on Washington to pressure the Congress and President to pass a comprehensive civil rights bill outlawing racial discrimination, once and for all. Tragically, the response of some unreconstructed segregationists was the blowing up of a black church, in Birmingham, closely associated with the movement that killed four black girls. When word reached San Francisco, Local 10 members quickly shut down the port for a “stop work meeting” in front of the U.S. Federal Building to protest this terrorist attack.
Due to the union’s many efforts to fight racism, in 1967 Martin Luther King, Jr. visited Local 10 where he became an honorary member, like Paul Robeson before him. King, best known for his “I Have A Dream” speech, long had been interested in and supportive of unions but proved increasingly so in his final years. He repeatedly encouraged black workers to join and form unions, famously calling them “the first anti-poverty program.” King regularly supported and spoke to racially inclusive unions, so it not surprising that he visited Local 10’s hiring hall. Addressing a large gathering of dockworkers, King declared, “I don’t feel like a stranger here in the midst of the ILWU. We have been strengthened and energized by the support you have given to our struggles…We’ve learned from labor the meaning of power.” More than forty years later, Local 10 member Cleophas Williams remember the speech: “He talked about the economics of discrimination” insightfully pointing out, “What he said, is what Bridges had been saying all along” about all workers benefiting by attacking racism and forming interracial unions…The day after his stunning murder, April 9, 1968, the Bay Area was quiet when more than 150 cities and towns erupted into flames. Longshoremen shut down the ports of San Francisco and Oakland for their newest (honorary) member, as they always do when one of their own dies on the job. Nine ILWU members attended King’s funeral, in Atlanta, including Bridges, Chester, and Williams, elected the local’s first black president the year prior.
Similarly, it is neither incidental nor coincidental that ILWU members in the Bay Area gave timely and significant support to Californians seeking to form the United Farm Workers (UFW). It is widely known that migratory farm workers were heavily non-white (particularly Mexican and Filipino Americans) and immigrant (Mexican but also smatterings of other peoples including Arabs). When Filipino American farm workers struck large table and wine grape growers in and around Delano, California in 1965, they quickly joined forces with Cesar Chavez’s fledgling union, mostly Mexican Americans. Thus began a five-year saga that—like the predominantly African American sanitation workers with their “I Am A Man” campaign—combined elements of labor and civil rights activism. On November 17, 1965 a few of these strikers stood at the foot of SF Pier 50, hoping to convince longshoremen not to load Delano grapes aboard the President Wilson, headed for Asia. One key activist, Gilbert Padilla, described what happened next:
We went there as the grapes were being loaded onto ships to Japan…and I’m standing out there with a little cardboard, with a picket [sign], ‘Don’t eat grapes.’ then some of the longshoremen asked, ‘Is this a labor dispute?’ And I [was nervous and didn’t know whether we were legally allowed to use the term, so I] said, ‘No, no, no labor dispute.’ So they would walk in. Jimmy Herman came over and asked me, ‘What the hell you doing?’ And I told him we were striking. He knew about the strike but wanted to know, ‘what are you asking for?’ And I was telling him, and then he says, ‘Come with me.’ He took me to his office; he was president of the clerks (a Longshoremen’s Union local). He took me to his office and he got on his hands and knees, Jimmy Herman, and he made picket signs. And he told me, ‘You go back there and don’t tell nobody about who gave you this. But you just stand there. [You] don’t [have to] say a goddamned thing.’ The sign said, ‘Farm Workers on Strike.’ And everybody walked out of that fucking place, man! That’s the first time I felt like I was 10 feet tall, man! Everybody walked out. So then they asked what’s happening and we were telling them, and Jesus Christ, man, I never seen anything like it. There were trucks all the way up to the bridge, man!
That Bay Area longshoremen and clerks actively supported this movement comes as little surprise, especially as the ILWU organized farm workers, overwhelmingly Asian Americans, in Hawai’i in the 1950s.
Local 10 also played an integral, if hidden, role in the historic Pan-Indian occupation of Alcatraz, one of the most incredible chapters in Bay Area social movement history. Beginning in 1969, American Indians, including many students at San Francisco State, planned and occupied the legendary Alcatraz Island, a former federal penitentiary. They did so to raise awareness of the desperate plight of American Indians and promote cultural and political changes among both Indians and the nation at large. Long forgotten or never known is that a Local 10 longshoreman, “Indian Joe” Morris, born and raised on the Blackfoot reservation in Montana, helped make the eighteen-month occupation possible. The twelve-acre “Rock” was lifeless so literally everything needed to sustain the occupiers’ lives, including water, had to come from the mainland (a main reason the federal government stopped using it as a prison). Morris secured the unused SF Pier 40 from which the transfer of all people and supplies occurred between the island and city. In his unpublished memoir, he writes, “When the Indians occupied Alcatraz Island I was the Alcatraz troubleshooter and mainland coordinator.” Morris also raised thousands of dollars from the ILWU and other unions in support and even took collections at the Ferry Building (now named after Harry Bridges). Without Morris’ unsung action, the occupation—simply put—could not have continued very long. Morris might have been the only American Indian in Local 10, but there was tremendous sympathy among others for the occupation; for example, the ILWU Executive Board praised the Indians occupying Alcatraz “as a haven and a symbol of the genocide they have suffered.” Morris helped arrange for a delegation of Local 10 and other ILWU members to visit Alcatraz, where Lou Goldblatt proclaimed, “You folks are just like a labor union on strike. You have to last one day longer than the other guy.” Winding down in 1971, the Dispatcher featured a photograph of Morris holding a painting—his first ever—commemorating the occupation though few know this intersectional history.
In 1969, the legendary African American activist Bayard Rustin wrote, “the Negro can never be socially and politically free until he is economically secure.” Rustin could have been describing the civil rights unionism of ILWU Local 10. Or, as William “Bill” Chester, an African American and long-time civil rights activist in the ILWU, recalled, “We found that, in a sense, the union is the community.” Bay Area longshore workers did not stop with racial equality, though. They also provided mighty assistance to many other social movements across the Bay Area, nation and world.

|
|
|
Trump Is Using His Pardon Power to Reward Violence and Cruelty |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50866"><span class="small">Jamelle Bouie, The New York Times</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 27 May 2019 13:58 |
|
Bouie writes: "The president likes 'tough' people and 'tough' action, where 'tough' is a euphemism for violent."
'With pardons, Trump has made a promise to those who might engage in the violence he admires: If you do these things, I will protect you.' (photo: Corban Lundborg/USAF)

Trump Is Using His Pardon Power to Reward Violence and Cruelty
By Jamelle Bouie, The New York Times
27 May 19
His vision of how to act “tough” extends from war crimes to police brutality and doesn’t stop there.
ast year, a federal jury in Washington convicted Nicholas Slatten, a former security contractor, of first-degree murder for his role in killing one of 14 Iraqi civilians who died in 2007 in a shooting that also injured more than a dozen others. Matthew Golsteyn, an Army Green Beret, was charged late last year with the murder of an unarmed Afghan man during a 2010 deployment. Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who served in Iraq, was reported to authorities by his own men, who witnessed him “stabbing a defenseless teenage captive to death,” “picking off a school-age girl and an old man from a sniper’s roost” and “indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine-gun fire.”
There are others — all accused of war crimes while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Trump apparently wants to give them a presidential pardon, timed for Memorial Day. Trump is not responding to a groundswell of public support for these men. Nor are current and former military leaders calling for leniency. Just the opposite: They have urged the White House to abandon this plan. “Absent evidence of innocence or injustice the wholesale pardon of US servicemembers accused of war crimes signals our troops and allies that we don’t take the law of armed conflict seriously,” Martin Dempsey, a retired general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Twitter.
But Republican lawmakers and conservative television personalities have lobbied in support of accused war criminals — Gallagher in particular. “He risked his life serving abroad to protect the rights of all of us here at home,” Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina said during a March rally on Capitol Hill, where he was joined by Representatives Duncan Hunter of California and Steve King of Iowa. Norman urged authorities to release Gallagher from confinement ahead of his trial “in light of his bravery, his patriotism and his rights as an American citizen.”
READ MORE

|
|
No to War on Iran |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37266"><span class="small">Greg Shupak, Jacobin</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 27 May 2019 13:57 |
|
Shupak writes: "The jury long ago returned its verdict on US intervention in the Middle East: a similar catastrophe in Iran must be prevented."
John Bolton. (photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP)

No to War on Iran
By Greg Shupak, Jacobin
27 May 19
The jury long ago returned its verdict on US intervention in the Middle East: a similar catastrophe in Iran must be prevented.
US war on Iran as is already underway. To this point, the attacks have been political and economic, which is not to say they haven’t been incredibly destructive.
US sanctions are causing food shortages and have hit Iran’s health care system, undermining access to pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, including cardiac pacemakers. According to the Red Crescent, US sanctions prevented relief from getting to Iranians when flooding devastated the country Iran in April.
The sanctions have triggered a collapse in economic growth and pushed the country into a deep recession. Inflation is at 40 percent while banks and businesses are too scared of being targeted by the US Treasury to risk violating sanctions. Oil is the source of as much as 40 percent of Iran’s revenue, and the Trump government says that it intends to drive Iranian oil sales to zero.
The Trump administration has designated a branch of Iran’s military, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a “terrorist organization,” the first time a US government has applied the label to a country’s military. The classification means that any individual or group that does business with the IRGC could face criminal prosecution; the move will further undermine Iran’s economy, given that the IRGC is one of its major players.
The Trump government has taken steps that suggest greater US aggression against Iran could be in the offing. Early in Trump’s tenure, the CIA established an organization focused exclusively on gathering and analyzing intelligence about Iran. John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Elaine Chao have all lobbied for Mojahedin-e Khalq, a cultish Iranian exile group that is widely despised by Iranians for its murderous violence and collaboration with the US-Iraqi assault on Iran in the 1980s.
This month, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented Trump’s key national security aides with an updated military plan to kill people in Iran that would involve deploying up to 120,000 troops. The US sent B-52 Bombers to patrol the Persian Gulf — supposedly because of an unspecified threat against US personnel in the Middle East, a threat that Britain’s top general in the anti-ISIS coalition says doesn’t exist — where they were joined by other US jets already in the region: the US also approved sending the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and a Patriot missile battery.
To justify these escalations, the US government tries to portray Iran as an aggressor that bears primary responsible for the violence in the Middle East. The principle talking point here is the wildly misleading claim that Iran is the leading sponsor of “terrorism” in the region. Washington has also dubiously suggested that Tehran is responsible for sabotaging two Saudi oil tankers, as well as one from the UAE and another from Norway — an accusation for which the US admits there isn’t proof.
And the Trump administration, which recalled its non-essential embassy staff in Iraq citing purported threats from Iran-backed forces in Iraq, blames Iran for a rocket that landed near the US’s Iraqi embassy but has provided no evidence. That hasn’t stopped Trump from threatening to bring about “the official end of Iran.” Nor has it prevented his government from dispatching drones, 1,500 more troops, additional Patriot anti-missile batteries, reconnaissance aircraft and additional air and missile “defense” systems to Iran’s doorstep, all of which are on top of the eighty thousand troops the US admits to having in the area, to say nothing of the thousands more US forces in the region’s seas.
Why the US Wants to Destroy Iran
US government hostility towards Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. We know this because Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and hasn’t been close to having one since at least 2003, if ever.
Iran takes the extremist position that it should be able to develop and profit from its own natural resources and says that, if it’s not allowed to do that, it will withdraw from the nuclear agreement that the US exited last year. Unlike the US, Iran abided by the accord, but a key Iranian incentive for signing it was to get relief from the sanctions that are immiserating the country.
Understanding the actual reasons the US ruling class wants to destroy Iran requires examining the wider context.
Between the 1953 US-British coup against the democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the 1979 revolution, Iran was an indispensable ally of the US government in the Cold War against communism and Arab nationalism, and the Iranian people were subject to the Shah’s US-backed torture state. It’s difficult to overstate how severe a blow Iran’s Islamic Revolution was to the American ruling class; it would be roughly comparable to an anti-imperialist revolt topping the Saudi state today or to the US’s Israeli cop on the beat going off duty.
The US ruling class never reconciled itself to the loss of its Iranian partner, especially not after a subsequent hostage crisis in which the US could not simply impose its will. To make matters worse from the standpoint of US planners, Iran showed itself to be a formidable obstacle to US dominance in West Asia when the American occupation and bombing of Lebanon — and enabling of Israel doing the same — led to the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut, which the US attributes to Iran and which resulted in the US withdrawing from Lebanon, defeated and humiliated.
Iran isn’t a threat to start a war with the US, but it has long been a threat to US ruling class domination of the Middle East.
Iran has sponsored branches of the Palestinian liberation struggle against Israeli colonialism, supported Hezbollah’s resistance to US-Israeli aggression in Lebanon, backed Iraqi groups fighting the US occupation of Iraq, and aided the Houthis in Yemen against the US-Saudi-UAE-UK-Canadian attack on and starvation of Yemen. These actions are the basis on which the US and its partners call Iran a sponsor of “terrorism” — a characterization that elides the ways in which these are responses to US imperialist aggression, a force that is orders of magnitude more destructive than any actions Iran or its allies have taken. Likewise Iran’s presence in Syria and support for the Syrian government have been repeatedly characterized as malevolence that needs to be offset by the alleged benevolence of US activities in Syria.
Such geopolitical considerations are part of the logic of the US ruling class’ domination of the global capitalist system; that domination requires the control of territory and vital resources. Pursuing these objectives in the Gulf has entailed decades of US war-making against both Iraq and Iran and US militarization of the Gulf.
Therefore, US ruling class animosity toward Iran long predates the Trump presidency. The American state, unwilling to tolerate an independent government in the Middle East let alone one capable of thwarting US designs on the region, sponsored Iraq’s invasion of Iran almost immediately after the triumph of the 1979 revolution, going as far as helping Iraqi President Saddam Hussein use sarin and mustard gas against Iran in 1988.
The same year the US navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 passengers and attempting to cover up what happened in what the US says was an accident but for which it has always refused to apologize. For several years that decade, the CIA funded Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah who’s presently on a quest to create a “parliamentary monarchy” in Iran, an endeavor for which he says he will accept, US, Saudi, or Israeli support.
The Clinton government’s policy was the “dual containment” of Iraq and Iran that sought to isolate both governments politically, economically, and militarily, while the neoconservative mantra in the lead-up to the Bush administration’s 2003 US invasion of Iraq was “the road to Tehran lies through Baghdad.” The Obama government prosecuted its own crushing economic war on the Iranian population while the much-ballyhooed Obama-era nuclear deal wasn’t a peace deal but a strategy for controlling Iran and did not mean the end of US sanctions.
Stop the War
It’s far from certain that the Trump government will bomb or invade Iran, with the administration apparently split over whether to carry out this particular war crime. While the US has a substantial military advantage over Iran, the latter has a strong military and allies in the region capable of carrying out significant counter-attacks against US allies and US personnel. In the event of a US military assault on Iran, the US military would suffer significant casualties.
The Trump government may opt against invading or bombing Iran, but what the US is doing amounts to international armed blackmail that says to Iran: submit to American dictates, including unchallenged US hegemony across the Middle East, or face economic asphyxiation, if not a bloody onslaught.
The jury long ago returned its verdict on US intervention in the Middle East: tens of thousands of dead civilians in Yemen with tens of thousands more on the brink of death by starvation; annihilating Syrian cities and arms shipments that benefited sectarian groups; the destruction of Libya; a million dead in Iraq, unending massacres in Afghanistan. A similar catastrophe in Iran must be prevented.

|
|