SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
middle east
Trump Halts Iran Attack at Gulf Monarchs' Request as Democrats Renew War Powers Push
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged the GOP to "realize that this war didn't end at the 60-day mark and will not end until Republicans show some backbone and support Democrats' war powers resolution."
May 18, 2026
As President Donald Trump announced Monday that he hit pause on a planned attack against Iran at the request of three Gulf monarchs, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer renewed Democrats' push for a war powers resolution to end the illegal conflict.
Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform Monday afternoon that "I have been asked by the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, and the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to hold off on our planned Military attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was scheduled for tomorrow, in that serious negotiations are now taking place, and that, in their opinion, as Great Leaders and Allies, a Deal will be made, which will be very acceptable to the United States of America, as well as all Countries in the Middle East, and beyond."
"This Deal will include, importantly, NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR IRAN!" the president continued. "Based on my respect for the above mentioned Leaders, I have instructed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, and The United States Military, that we will NOT be doing the scheduled attack of Iran tomorrow, but have further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached."
Responding to the post on X, Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, concluded that "once again, Trump has realized that escalation will end up badly for the US. That does not necessarily mean, though, that the necessary realism, discipline, and creativity will be mustered for the talks."
Prior to the president's Monday announcement, Parsi had warned that "the Middle East is once again teetering on the brink as Trump appears poised to reignite war with Iran," pointing out reporting that he would convene military advisers on Tuesday and that he had "flooded Truth Social with a barrage of incendiary threats."
The Trump administration partnered with Israeli forces to launch an assault on Iran—without authorization from Congress and in violation of the United Nations Charter—on February 28. Just hours after Trump's genocidal threat against Iran on April 7, a ceasefire agreement was reached; it has since been extended, though the US has maintained its naval blockade while Iran has continued to restrict ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
The beginning of this month marked a key deadline under the War Powers Act, which the administration tried to dodge by claiming that the current ceasefire means the conflict has been "terminated." While key Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), have tried to stick to that talking point, Democratic leaders and legal experts aren't buying it.
Nope.Not how this works.A naval blockade is an act of war and U.S. armed forces remain engaged in hostilities for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) May 17, 2026 at 10:15 AM
Congressional Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass war powers resolutions in the Republican-controlled chambers.
Last Thursday, Congressman Jared Golden (D-Maine) cast the deciding vote on the latest war powers resolution considered in the House of Representatives. The retiring former Marine sided with all Republicans except Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Thomas Massie (Ky.) to block the measure.
As The Hill reported Monday:
Golden, a former Marine who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has indicated he'll support the next war powers resolution. He said he only opposed the last measure because it had a withdrawal deadline that had already passed.
"I look forward to voting for a clean, relevant resolution as soon as possible," Golden said in a statement Wednesday.
And Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) could return to Congress after being absent for four weeks and not voting on any issue since April 17. Wilson released a statement Thursday that she recently underwent eye surgery and was unable to fly but plans to be back in Washington, DC, soon.
With Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) also absent since March 5 because of a "personal medical issue," Republicans can't have more than two defections on an otherwise party-line vote.
In other words, "it may [come] down to absences," as Punchbowl News reporter Anthony Adragna said on social media Monday.
Like in the House, the latest Senate vote also came down to a Democrat: Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) has repeatedly voted with nearly all Republicans against war powers resolutions on Iran, and did so again last Wednesday. Unlike Golden, Fetterman told Semafor on Monday that Senate Democrats know he's "pretty much locked and loaded" regarding his support for Trump's war.
"Something like this is much more important than just voting what your base might demand. Because I think things are much bigger and more important than that. And Iran with a nuclear bomb is one of those things," Fetterman said, taking aim at anti-war campaigners. "I'm very much aware how damaging it is as a Democrat to hold these views. I had 20 CodePink dopes in my office."
CodePink held a "brown bag teach-in" lunch last week. The group said that "many of Fetterman's constituents feel betrayed by the person they campaigned to elect in 2022. Since becoming a senator in 2023, he has repeatedly broken with fellow Democrats to support Trump's wars and militaristic policies. Constituents hope this lunchtime educational session will help him better understand the human consequences of these positions and the growing opposition among Pennsylvanians to endless war and continued support for Israel."
While Fetterman opposed the latest resolution, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) all voted in favor of it, and Schumer (D-NY) made clear on the chamber's floor Monday that he's pushing for an eighth vote.
"Over the weekend, Donald Trump told Iran, 'The clock is ticking, and they better get moving, fast, or there won't be anything left of them,'" Schumer noted. "How can Donald Trump say the clock is ticking when he told the Senate that the clock had paused when his war recently passed the War Powers Act's 60-day threshold to either end hostilities or get congressional authorization?"
"Senate Republicans need to stop playing dumb and realize that this war didn't end at the 60-day mark and will not end until Republicans show some backbone and support Democrats' war powers resolution to end the fighting," he declared. "This week, Democrats will force an eighth vote on our war powers resolution to withdraw our troops from hostilities with Iran."
Schumer added that "I urge Republicans to support our war powers resolution, end the war, get the troops out of harm's way, or else Republicans will learn that the clock is ticking not only on this war but on their own political futures."
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Stop Failing in the Middle East, the US Must Consider the Needs of Arab People
US policies in the region are headed toward disaster—not only for the US and its stated goals, but also, and more importantly, for the people who live there.
May 18, 2026
One reason why US policy in the Middle East has been so problematic is because policymakers refuse to consider its impact on the needs of Arab people. With Israel, it’s a different story. Overattentiveness to Israeli concerns coupled with the lack of sensitivity to what Arabs think about our actions has led to deep fractures between Arabs and the US and within the Arab World.
Since 2000, we’ve conducted over 50 multination opinion polls on a variety of topics. We explored Arab attitudes toward other Arabs, the US, China, Russia, Iran, and Israel. We also examined attitudes toward conflicts in the region.
It’s been over two years since we’ve polled across the Arab World, but based on what we saw developing during our two and a half decades of work, it’s clear that US policies are headed toward disaster—not only for the US and its stated goals, but also, and more importantly, for the Arab people.
What follows are some observations based on the trend lines we have culled from our surveys:
- After 9/11, President George W. Bush famously claimed, “They hate us because they hate our values.” Our 2002 polling found the opposite: Arabs liked American people, products, education, and values, but strongly disliked US policies toward the Arab world—especially regarding Palestinians. As I said during a congressional hearing on my polling: “Arabs like us and our values—what they resent is that we don’t apply those values to them.”
Bush’s Iraq war and neglect of Palestinians further lowered US ratings. They rose with President Barack Obama’s promise of change but fell when he didn’t deliver on them. Attitudes further plummeted with President Donald Trump’s pro-Israel, anti-Muslim policies.
By late 2023, our last multination poll showed President Joe Biden’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza generating even stronger negatives. To make matters worse, the complications created by President Trump’s US-Israel attacks on Iran, coupled with his assault on the very aspects of America that were respected worldwide—our universities, press freedom, and immigration policy—make it likely that Arabs are now finding it difficult to even like American values.
- Over the years, we have often polled on favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward China and the US. During this time, while opinions toward the US ebbed and flowed, attitudes toward China remained steady. By the end of 2023, for the first time, China’s ratings were competitive with those of the US in areas that had previously been the US’s strong suits—education and doing business. And in several Arab countries, China was seen as a more reliable partner than the US.
- Arab attitudes toward Iran have followed a consistent pattern. When Iran was perceived to be under attack for resisting the US and the West, it found a strong base of support among many Arabs. But when Iran directly meddled in Arab countries, opinion turned against it. And when its ally Hezbollah turned its weapons against its domestic Lebanese opponents and joined Iran in direct involvement in Syria’s civil war, majorities in most Arab countries turned against Iran.
Following this trajectory, one can reasonably assume that the US-Israel attacks on Iran coupled with Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and Syria, and Israel’s boasts of becoming the regional power that was “defending Western civilization against barbarism,” won Iran some sympathy in Arab public opinion. The same might be true for the recent US-Israel attacks on Iran, except that instead of seeking Arab support, Iran deliberately attacked its Arab Gulf neighbors—the very countries that had been trying to restore relationships with the meddlesome Islamic Republic. This, no doubt, turned opinion among many in the Gulf against Iran. It is uncertain, however, how much intra-Arab friction this is causing in the rest of Arab world.
- Support for Palestinians has long been a central Arab concern. They showed little interest in making peace with Israel—even in those countries that had signed peace agreements with Israel. As Israeli repression of Palestinians intensified and the fractured and visionless Palestinian leadership failed to inspire, Arab opinion began to change. In late 2019, we asked Arabs if they felt it would be desirable to make peace with Israel, even if Israel didn’t accept the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative. When significant numbers said that it might be desirable, we asked why. The responses varied but many told us that it might help end the violence and give Arabs more leverage to convince Israel to grant Palestinian rights.
We repeated this question at the end of September 2023 and had completed about half of the questionnaires by October 7, the date of the Hamas attack. We interrupted the survey and only went back a few weeks later to complete it. The changes in the results were significant. Before October 7, responses were similar to the 2019 poll, but by the end of October, in reaction to the intensity of Israel’s assault on Gaza, attitudes shifted dramatically against any attempt to deal with Israel. Three years later, one can reasonably assume this hasn’t changed.
In 2024 and 2025, on three occasions, we polled in the Occupied Lands. Results were disturbing. Israeli policy had worked to discredit the Palestinian Authority, weakening its ability to govern. Opinion in the West Bank had turned against the PA, with respondents saying they preferred Hamas. In Gaza, we found that Hamas had fallen into deep disfavor, with a strong plurality of Gazans preferring the PA. In both the West Bank and Gaza there was little support for US, Israeli, or international governance. They preferred Palestinian unity.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to lay waste to Gaza and is running roughshod over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, further angering Palestinians and discrediting the PA. All the while Israel rejects any role for the PA in Gaza. As the situation further unravels, the US ignores Palestinians’ wishes and turns a blind eye to Israeli misdeeds.
- In Lebanon, when Hezbollah was seen as resisting Israel, it found favor among many Lebanese, especially since Israel frequently bombed Lebanon and occupied a swatch of its land from the late 1970s to 2000. However, when in 2008, Hezbollah turned its weapons against the state and in 2019 against the popular revolt, Lebanese opinion divided along sectarian lines. Our polling before 2023 showed that most Lebanese wanted Hezbollah disarmed or under the control of the Lebanese army. But Israel’s recent devastating assault on Lebanon; its bombing throughout the country; its forced expulsion of 1 million Lebanese from the south; its destruction of homes, farmlands, and entire villages; and explicit intention to annex a large portion of the country has no doubt restored some support for Hezbollah and exacerbated internal sectarian tensions, while turning more Lebanese against Israel and the US.
Seen in this light, US efforts to pressure the Lebanese government to forcibly disarm Hezbollah and make a peace agreement with Israel is dangerous for Lebanon’s stability.
***
In each instance, it is America’s lack of attentiveness to Arab sensitivities and needs that contributes to making a bad situation even worse—further embittering Arabs toward the US, deepening fissures within the Arab World, while fostering every-expanding Israeli impunity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Reigniting Iran War Proves It Was Failure From the Start
As Tehran believes Trump intends to prosecute the next war with far greater ferocity, Iranian planners are preparing a far more expansive and punishing retaliatory campaign. It doesn't have to be this way.
May 18, 2026
The Middle East is once again teetering on the brink as Trump appears poised to reignite war with Iran. Press reports indicate he will convene military advisers on Tuesday, though my understanding is that both the meeting and the decision are likely to come sooner. Over the past several hours, Trump has flooded Truth Social with a barrage of incendiary threats. While some of this may be theatrical brinkmanship designed to force Tehran into submission, sources in the Iranian capital tell me they expect the United States to resume hostilities within the next 48 hours.
We should first recognize that restarting the war amounts to an admission that Trump’s previous escalatory gambit — the blockade of the blockade — has failed. That, in turn, was itself an admission that the war had failed. Which was an admission that the threats of war in January had failed. As I have argued before on my Substack, this relentless search for an escalatory silver bullet capable of bringing Iran to its knees is not unique to Trump; it has become a defining pathology of American Iran policy for decades.
Although negotiators have made meaningful progress on several fronts, talks have thus far failed to produce an agreement, largely because of irreconcilable differences over Tehran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile. And as Washington has come to realize that the blockade is backfiring, a new and dangerous dynamic has emerged: both sides now believe another round of fighting will strengthen their hand in the negotiations that follow.
As I argued in numerous interviews in January, Trump dramatically underestimated Iran’s strength, while hard-liners in Tehran believed war would strengthen Iran’s leverage by exposing the illusion of Iranian weakness. In their view, the outcome of the conflict vindicated that assessment, leaving them increasingly confident — even emboldened — about what a second round of war could yield. I am told the new Supreme Leader belongs to this camp.
Moreover, just as Tehran believes Trump intends to prosecute the next war with far greater ferocity, Iranian planners are preparing a far more expansive and punishing retaliatory campaign, complete with new strategic objectives and targets.
First, Iranian officials increasingly describe the next war as an opportunity to inflict maximum strategic damage on the United Arab Emirates, citing Abu Dhabi’s active role in the previous conflict, its deepening and increasingly overt partnership with Israel, and its role in urging Trump to resume hostilities.
Tehran is likely to target American data centers in the UAE, a move that serves multiple purposes. Iranian officials argue that these American technology firms have already become participants in the conflict through their support for the Pentagon. At the same time, Tehran sees an opportunity to cripple the UAE’s ambitions to become a global artificial intelligence hub — and, in doing so, potentially undermine Washington’s AI competition with China.
This points to a second defining feature of Iran’s strategy in a future war. Tehran believes Trump and his family hold financial stakes in many of these same technology ventures. Targeting Trump’s personal business interests is a lever Iran conspicuously avoided pulling during the first conflict but now appears increasingly willing to use. The logic is straightforward: Trump may tolerate damage to American strategic interests, but he is acutely sensitive to threats against his own financial empire. Raise the personal cost to Trump himself, the reasoning goes, and he may prove more willing to adopt a realistic negotiating position.
Third, Tehran is likely to show far less restraint if evidence emerges that other Gulf Cooperation Council states permit the United States or Israel to use their territory or airspace in a renewed conflict. The result would be broader and far more perilous horizontal escalation, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the global economy should critical energy infrastructure come under attack.
Fourth, the Red Sea is now in play. That would dramatically widen the geographic scope of the conflict while placing even greater upward pressure on already volatile oil prices.
Finally, Tehran is increasingly examining the possibility of severing the major submarine fiber-optic cable networks running beneath the Persian Gulf — arteries through which most GCC internet traffic flows, including billions of dollars in financial transactions. Iranian officials increasingly view this as a potential second Strait of Hormuz: a powerful new point of leverage capable of disrupting the global economy at enormous scale.
Renewed war is not inevitable. But when both sides convince themselves that another round of fighting will strengthen their negotiating position, the gravitational pull toward conflict becomes dangerously strong — however irrational the logic may ultimately be.
This article was republished with permission from Trita Parsi's newsletter
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular