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
war powers
The Dangers of a War Without an Off-Ramp
Strategic signals from Tehran and realist warnings in Washington align on a disturbing conclusion: The present conflict may lack a credible pathway toward termination.
Mar 13, 2026
The recent escalation of hostilities involving United States and Israeli strikes on Iranian territory has raised urgent questions about where the conflict is headed. As military actions unfold and rhetoric intensifies, a sober assessment of the strategic structure of the conflict becomes increasingly necessary. Wars often generate powerful narratives shaped by domestic politics, alliance commitments, and wartime psychology. Yet beneath these narratives lie strategic realities that ultimately determine whether a conflict moves toward escalation, stalemate, or settlement.
Two recent interviews conducted by Norwegian political scientist Glenn Diesen offer a revealing window into these realities. In separate conversations, Diesen spoke with professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran. The two scholars speak from vastly different institutional and national contexts, yet their analyses converge on a troubling conclusion: The present conflict may lack a credible pathway toward termination.
From the perspective of realist international relations theory, Mearsheimer emphasizes a familiar strategic principle. Wars initiated without clearly defined political objectives often drift toward escalation and attrition. Military operations may achieve tactical success while simultaneously deepening the strategic trap in which policymakers find themselves. When leaders cannot articulate what political outcome would constitute victory—or how such an outcome might realistically be achieved—military escalation risks becoming an end in itself.
The dynamics described by Marandi from Tehran reinforce this concern from the opposite side of the conflict. His remarks suggest that Iranian policymakers increasingly interpret US actions not as limited or coercive strikes but as part of a broader effort to impose strategic defeat. When a state believes that external pressure is intended to undermine its economic survival or political system, the incentives for compromise diminish dramatically. Resistance and escalation become the rational response.
Wars rarely end well when they begin without a clear understanding of how they are supposed to end.
Under such conditions, both sides tend to view their own actions as defensive while interpreting the other side’s moves as steps toward existential pressure. This reciprocal perception forms what strategists sometimes describe as an escalation trap. Each escalation appears justified in the moment, yet each step simultaneously reduces the space for diplomatic resolution.
Recent commentary from Tehran reinforces these concerns about escalation dynamics. In a separate interview with Diesen, Marandi of the University of Tehran pointed to the strategic importance of Kharg Island, the hub through which the majority of Iran’s oil exports pass. Speculation in strategic circles about possible attempts to strike or seize the island illustrates how the conflict could quickly move beyond limited military operations toward attacks on critical economic infrastructure. Such a move, he suggested, would likely be interpreted in Tehran not as a tactical action but as an attempt to cripple the country’s economic lifeline, increasing the risk of wider regional retaliation and drawing additional states into the confrontation.
One particularly revealing example emerged in the discussion between Diesen and Marandi regarding the possibility—circulating in strategic commentary—of a US attempt to strike or seize Kharg Island. Located in the Persian Gulf, Kharg Island is the central hub for Iranian oil exports, reportedly handling roughly 80-90% of the country’s shipments. Because of its economic importance, targeting the island would represent a dramatic shift in the character of the conflict.
Military strikes against discrete installations can sometimes be framed as limited actions intended to degrade specific capabilities. Attacks on critical economic infrastructure are different. They signal an effort to impose systemic economic damage on the opposing state. From Tehran’s perspective, such an action would likely be interpreted not as a tactical move but as an attempt to cripple the Iranian economy itself.
Strategically, this kind of escalation rarely remains confined to its original target. Marandi noted that any attempt to seize or attack the island would likely require the use of airspace or facilities in neighboring Gulf states. That reality alone would expand the number of actors drawn directly into the conflict. Iran would almost certainly interpret such involvement as participation in the attack and respond accordingly.
The result could be a widening regional confrontation affecting maritime routes, energy infrastructure, and shipping lanes across the Persian Gulf. Given the centrality of the region to global oil markets, such developments would quickly carry worldwide economic consequences.
Yet even from a strictly military standpoint, Marandi argues that such escalation might prove strategically futile. Iran’s geographic proximity to the island and its coastal defense capabilities could complicate any attempt to seize or neutralize it. More broadly, attacks on economic lifelines rarely produce the decisive political outcomes their planners hope for. Instead, they tend to deepen the resolve of the targeted state while increasing the scale of retaliation.
This dynamic highlights a deeper structural problem in the current conflict: the absence of a clearly defined off-ramp. When wars begin without clear termination conditions, each new escalation step appears tactically rational while simultaneously making political settlement more difficult. Military actions generate retaliation; retaliation generates justification for further escalation; and over time the original political objectives become increasingly obscured.
History provides many examples of wars drifting into such patterns. Once conflict becomes self-sustaining, the political cost of de-escalation rises even as the strategic benefits of continued escalation diminish. Leaders fear appearing weak if they pursue negotiations, yet continuing the war often produces mounting risks without delivering a decisive outcome. These dynamics are precisely what realist analysts warn about when conflicts begin to expand without clearly defined political objectives or credible pathways toward de-escalation.
For the United States, these strategic concerns intersect with constitutional questions as well. Sustained hostilities raise fundamental issues regarding congressional authority over war powers and democratic accountability in decisions that may carry enormous human and geopolitical consequences. When a conflict expands without clear political objectives, the need for transparent debate about strategy and legal authority becomes all the more urgent.
The convergence between realist analysis in Washington and strategic signaling from Tehran therefore deserves careful attention. Despite their very different vantage points, both perspectives point toward the same underlying concern: The present conflict may be drifting toward a prolonged confrontation without clearly defined limits or exit mechanisms.
Recognizing that danger does not require accepting the strategic narratives of any particular side. It simply requires acknowledging a central lesson of international politics. Wars rarely end well when they begin without a clear understanding of how they are supposed to end.
If policymakers hope to avoid an open-ended escalation spiral, renewed emphasis on political strategy and diplomatic pathways will be essential. Without a credible off-ramp, even limited conflicts can evolve into prolonged confrontations whose costs far exceed their original causes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Refusing to Impeach Trump, Congress Has Failed the American People and the World
Where would we be if the opposition party had followed through on that vote in April? What if DOGE; illegal firings of federal workers; and wildly destabilizing, illegal tariffs had been enough for Congress to begin asserting their power?
Mar 04, 2026
Over a year into President Donald Trump’s second lawless, unconstitutional administration, Congress is only “considering” reasserting themselves as a co-equal branch of government. They have mounted no meaningful response to repeated usurpation of war powers and purse, ignoring continued obstructions of justice and violations of civil liberties. Congress has been so desperate to avoid imposing accountability on this administration that the mere idea of impeachment sent them into a “frenzied rage” throughout 2025.
This inaction bears rotten fruit again and again. The president’s unilateral declaration of war on Iran in February of 2026 can be traced directly to congressional inaction after Trump’s unilateral strikes on Iran in May of 2025. At that time, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) forced a vote on H.Res 537, impeaching Donald J. Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress voted to table the resolution. By refusing to impose consequences eight months ago, Congress has effectively green-lit this war, including the murder of more than 50 schoolgirls.
American voters across the nation and in swing districts have supported impeachment for nearly a year. Today mainstream grassroots groups like 50501 have joined the call for Congress to impeach Trump. Imagine if Congress was leading this effort instead of fighting it. What could we accomplish if we had our nominal leaders on our own side, rather than fighting against us at every step?
Today, individual representatives say they support impeachment, but they throw up road blocks: insisting it is a process (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)), that there should be an inquiry first (Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI)), that they need to have leadership’s buy-in (Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY)), or that they must wait for the midterms (Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)). These are all lies.
The American people like cowards even less than they like fascists. As a result, Democrats today are less popular than Donald Trump.
Impeachment is a privileged resolution, and that means any member can introduce articles of impeachment at any time through Rule IX and demand that the House address it within 48 hours. Congress is missing the will to act.
The first impeachment articles of Trump’s second term were filed in April of 2025 by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), after Citizens’ Impeachment (then Operation Anti-King) coordinated a grassroots campaign to push for impeachment. H.Res 353 incorporated Citizens’ Impeachment’s article on tyranny and was filed under Rule IX to force a vote. The backlash—from Democratic leadership and from his own party—was so intense that Thanedar withdrew the articles from the floor five minutes before the vote. The resolution has been with the Judiciary Committee, untouched, for the last 10 months.
Where would we be if the opposition party had followed through on that vote in April? What if DOGE; illegal firings of federal workers; and wildly destabilizing, illegal tariffs had been enough for Congress to begin asserting their power?
Rep. Thanedar has since learned to use the drafting of impeachment articles as a political tool instead of the desperately needed accountability that the nation requires. In December of 2025, Thanedar’s office asked Citizens’ Impeachment to endorse H.Res 935 impeaching Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for the murder of two shipwrecked survivors. Citizens’ Impeachment did so, with the caveat that simply drafting articles was not enough—the articles needed to be filed under Rule IX and brought to a vote as soon as possible. Rhetoric was escalating, military assets were being moved into position, and it was clear that military action was imminent.
Had Rep. Thanedar forced a vote then, when Hegseth’s murder of shipwrecked survivors was in the news and Congress had just reminded military members that they must refuse illegal orders, he would have brought consequences to bear on one of the least popular members of Trump’s cabinet, and possibly forestalled the Venezuela strikes. Instead, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth once again usurped congressional war powers without consequence. H.Res. 935 remains with the Judiciary Committee, irrelevant and ignored.
Similarly, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) spent months requesting an impeachment inquiry into Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s behavior before Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) decided to just write up the articles and make it happen. A full 187 members of Congress have now endorsed H.Res 996, an impeachment resolution for Noem. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) even claimed he would pursue impeachment if Noem wasn’t fired “immediately.” Without a vote though, even those actions are empty. Jeffries made that promise one month ago. Noem is still in office, H. Res 996 remains in committee, and Noem’s federal paramilitary forces continue their occupation of American cities unabated.
Articles of impeachment record the lawlessness of this administration, but they aren’t magical. The real power that every member of the House has is to force votes on those articles, putting their colleagues on record for their endorsement of the Trump administration’s repeated constitutional violations. And with the exception of Rep. Green, they absolutely refuse to use it.
In perhaps the most baffling abdication of both power and good sense, only two members of Congress have even considered impeachment for the Department of Justice's inept and corrupt handling of the Epstein Files. No articles have been written or filed though, despite the nearly unanimous vote to release the Epstein Files; the enormous, bipartisan outrage of the public at the Epstein Class; the blatant cover-up and obstruction of justice at the hands of Attorney General Pam Bondi; and pre-written articles of impeachment sent directly to Congress by thousands of constituents. Congress cannot seem to connect the dots to realize that not only would impeachment be good for the country, it would be overwhelmingly popular, even as midterms loom on the horizon.
The American people like cowards even less than they like fascists. As a result, Democrats today are less popular than Donald Trump.
What’s new here is that Congress already knows it can and should do more. As early as July 2025, one anonymous representative admitted it to NBC, saying of their constituents: “They aren’t buying that just because we are in the minority, we can’t do anything. The truth is we can. And we should.”
With the midterms coming up, voters have a chance to do something about this toxic dynamic. There are more than 100 pro-impeachment candidates on the ballot this election cycle, including prominent contenders like NJ-11 Analilia Mejia, former national political director for Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign and a member of former sPresident Joe Biden’s Department of Labor
The 435 members of the House are the only people with the power to begin impeachment proceedings. The 100 members of the Senate are the only people who can convict and remove Trump and his enablers from power. For a year, these powerful people have refused to take action. They have chosen to delay, and wait, and defer, allowing ever more harm to come to America and its people. In 2026 we should replace them all—they do not have the courage to meet this desperate moment for the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular