'Would You Rather Go Back to War?' Critics Ask Democrats Fuming Over Trump's Iran Deal | Common Dreams
2 days ago by Salamence to c/progressivepolitics
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8802514
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/57841
Supporters of a diplomatic resolution to the illegal war that US President Donald Trump launched against Iran earlier this year are pushing back against Democratic critics of the interim peace agreement signed on Wednesday, warning it is politically and morally foolish to attack efforts to end a conflict that has killed thousands and plunged the global economy into chaos.
"Would you rather go back to war?" Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), asked Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of several Democrats joining war-hawk Republicans in openly decrying the new memorandum of understanding (MOU).
In a series of social media posts on Wednesday, Blumenthal pointed to "bipartisan condemnation" of what he called "a disgraceful deal" and "unconditional surrender" on the part of the US. The senator added that "anything like this deal will be dead on arrival in the Senate" and declared, "It must be approved here to have enforceable effect."
Other prominent Democrats offered similar critiques. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said it is "hard to imagine a more thorough capitulation," while Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the deal a "dangerous giveaway" to "this enemy," referring to Iran.
"His war proved only one thing: that diplomacy was the answer all along."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned Thursday that such criticisms of the interim peace deal imply that "a war should not be brought to an end until it has produced better terms—even when the war itself is failing."
"Taken seriously, that logic leads to a dangerous conclusion: that a failed war must continue until the battlefield fortunes somehow improve and a more favorable outcome becomes attainable. Perhaps that day will come. Perhaps it never will. In the meantime, the costs—in lives, treasure, regional stability, and strategic credibility—are treated as secondary considerations," Parsi wrote. "This is how endless wars are born."
Parsi expressed disappointment at the rhetoric of some Democrats "because it echoes the same bad-faith tactics Republicans deployed" against the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump ripped up in 2018, setting the stage for war.
"To be sure, Trump has invited some of this treatment. He spent years attacking Obama’s agreement with a barrage of misleading arguments and exaggerated claims," Parsi noted. "But that does not make it wise for Democrats to return the favor. Trump currently owns this failed war, but if the Democrats help torpedo the MOU and war resumes, then they will co-own the next war. Trump’s disaster will become theirs as well."
Many Democrats appear to understand that risk and are welcoming diplomatic progress—while also condemning the illegal war and its consequences for the US and the world.
"Matters of war and peace must rise above partisan politics," said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas). "Democrats must not replicate Republicans’ irresponsible opposition to the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear agreement, which placed real constraints on Iran’s nuclear program before President Trump foolishly tore it up, setting the stage for this disastrous war."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), in a Thursday morning appearance on Fox News, said the emerging deal between the US and Iran "is not as good as the JCPOA was," while also expressing support for efforts to end the war.
Watch:
Ro Khanna on Maria Bartiromo's show makes the case for why Trump's deal with Iran is far inferior to the JCPOA (Note that Bartiromo acknowledges he's making "important points, and good ones") pic.twitter.com/n1nm3LyBcd
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 18, 2026Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) wrote in a social media post on Thursday that "any move toward diplomacy and away from violence is welcome news," calling Trump's Iran war "reckless" and "illegal."
"This war should be a lesson. The push for military adventurism and regime change by neocon war hawks was, unsurprisingly, an unmitigated disaster," said McGovern. "After three months of death and destruction, the rest of us are now left paying the price. His war proved only one thing: that diplomacy was the answer all along."
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
The article seems to be talking about efforts for congress to not approve the terms of the deal ending the conflict. So the question, directed at Democrat representatives supporting those efforts "Would you rather go back to war?" seems more literal than rhetorical, maybe we really could go back to war if the US refuses to honor the agreement and Iran resumes hostilities. The question isn't who to blame but whether to literally go back to war. Unless I'm misunderstanding this.
And since the war is horrific and the United States never stood anything to gain from it, bringing it back seems like an insane idea and is rightly criticized.
Because if you ask reasonable questions like this you can’t shit all over the democrats any time they do anything which doesn’t fly here.
How is it a contradiction to say "this deal is bad for America and good for Iran", and "Donald Trump should not have started a war that completely fucked the world economy (including our own gas prices) for 0 benefit to ourselves"? I fail to see how these two things are contradictory. I, in fact, hold Donald Trump accountable for both of them.
Good. I want a bad deal for America and a good deal for Iran. Iran didn't do shit. The American people voted for this. Maybe if the American people feel even a tiny sliver of discomfort from war for the first time in their lives, they will actually become more anti war. I want the things destroyed in Iran to be fixed. I want the water desalination plants and reservoirs rebuilt as quickly as humanly possible, because without that, there will be a humanitarian crisis larger in scale than anything the world has seen.
If you do not want Iran to be able to rebuild after an illegal war destroyed so much, then I don't think you actually care about human beings. You care about American citizens. You care about your particular tribe, and nothing else.
Why do you care about how bad it is for america? A real anti war person support providing compensations and the best deal for the victim .
A lot of dems reject the deal itself. It's either the deal or the return to this illegalnwar they claimed to be against.
Why do you care about how bad it is for america?
because I actually have to live here and have no means of escaping this fascist shithole, which means I am forced to pay taxes and remain somewhat personally invested in how they're spent, and how fucked my country is going to get over the next few years? what an odd question.
A lot of dems reject the deal itself. It’s either the deal or the return to this illegalnwar they claimed to be against.
both of them are bad, dumb options we shouldn't have had to choose between in the first place, personally I'd prefer my government start holding Trump personally responsible for his (colossal, 300 billion dollar) fuck-ups in some manner but we both know that won't happen.
A real anti war person support providing compensations and the best deal for the victim .
so far you've tried to strawman my comment first into "iran is a victim/iran is not a victim" (which wasn't what I was saying, hence, a strawman), now we're doing "no true scotsman". Cool, I like fallacious arguing too. My favorite's ad hominem, and I think you're either deeply stupid or simply not arguing in good faith -- likely both -- so I'm gonna block you now and let you keep doing that all on your own.
it is politically and morally foolish to attack efforts to end a conflict that has killed thousands and plunged the global economy into chaos.
Man, you guys are so close. It’s almost like you’re deliberately not getting the point for some reason.
You can do it I have faith in you.
There are democrats mad over this move? So far all ive seen are meltdowns from the "Israel first" crowd.
Yes, most of DNC leadership was quite happy that we were "finally" going to war with Iran and that it was a Republican in the oval office when we did. American citizens are generally quite anti-war and would like a divorce from Israel, but American state leadership does not reflect the values of average Americans.
If it worked out well they didn't want to be too vocally against it but they are happy a republican did it when it turns out bad
I knew they were happy the war started but ive yet to see any of them come out to decry its supposed end.
Not that it matters anyways because isntreal is gonna blow any deal up before it even gets off the ground.
Lmao, yea that tracks
... not with Iran.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
go to feed...
NO YOU BLATHERING CUNTS, WE'D RATHER HE NOT HAVE FUCKED EVERYTHING UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Like, I can be mad over two things at once -- an awful stupid deal that gives Iran everything they ever wanted just to get things back to normal (which seems to be floundering as I type), and the fuckwit that got us into this mess in the first place for no good reason, without which we wouldn't be doing said deal -- why can't you?
save