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
Weekly-News
Warnings of 'Escalation Trap' as Trump Mulls Sending 10,000 More US Troops to Middle East
"First Trump ordered 2,500 more American ground troops to the Middle East. Then it was doubled to 5,000," wrote one analyst. "Now Trump may literally double down again."
Mar 27, 2026
The Trump administration is reportedly considering sending 10,000 additional US troops to the Middle East amid mounting fears of an invasion of Iran, which is mobilizing its forces ahead of a possible ground assault.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the new US troop deployment "would likely include infantry and armored vehicles" and "would be added to the roughly 5,000 Marines and the thousands of paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division who have already been ordered to the region." The US Central Command has said roughly 50,000 American troops are currently stationed in the Middle East.
Lawmakers in the US have not authorized any attack on Iran, but legislative efforts to withdraw American forces from the war have thus far failed to pass either chamber of Congress. House Democratic leaders opted to punt a vote on a new Iran war powers resolution until mid-April despite apparently having enough support for passage, and the Senate isn't planning to hold its first public hearing on the war until after lawmakers return from spring recess.
"Sure am glad the US Congress thoroughly debated the merits of this war and the American public had a chance to weigh in regarding this expenditure of blood and treasure before the legislative branch ultimately decided it was worthwhile and voted to authorize it," Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote sardonically in response to reports of the new troop deployment plans.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, warned that the rapidly expanding troop deployments are "like a mathematically simplified escalation trap hypothetical come to life."
"First Trump ordered 2,500 more American ground troops to the Middle East. Then it was doubled to 5,000," wrote Williams. "Now Trump may literally double down again by deploying an additional 10,000 ground troops."
The Times of Israel reported Thursday that an unnamed official "from one of the countries mediating between the US and Iran" believes President Donald Trump "appears to be leaning toward ordering a US ground operation against Iran." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said publicly that a "ground component" is necessary in Iran, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly pushed Trump behind the scenes to launch a ground assault.
According to The Times of Israel, "the official intimately familiar with the mediation efforts says the US privately recognizes that Iran is not likely to agree to the concessions presented in Washington’s 15-point plan and has dispatched thousands of troops to the region in order to capture Tehran’s Kharg Island on Trump’s orders."
Kharg Island is Iran’s primary oil export hub. Among those urging Trump to seize the island is former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who wrote Thursday that "on the strategic chessboard of this war, Kharg Island is the next piece."
"Yes, there are risks," wrote Gallant, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. "Any operation to seize Kharg would require thousands of troops, sustained air and naval support, and detailed intelligence, and it would carry a real and expected cost in human life."
"President Trump has set up the US for this option. By signaling willingness to explore a diplomatic agreement with Iran, he has shown both the American people and the international community that he is prepared to compromise if Iran meets core demands," Gallant added. "In giving Iran days, not months, to meet these conditions, he buys time for US forces and their allies to prepare and finalize operational plans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrats Face Rising Pressure to ‘Bring the Iran War Powers Resolution to the Floor Right Now’
Democrats may have enough votes to pass a war powers resolution before the two-week recess, but party leaders have still not committed to doing so, even as the president appears ready for a ground invasion.
Mar 26, 2026
Backlash is continuing to grow after US House Democratic leaders made the decision to push off a war powers vote on President Donald Trump's Iran war for more than two weeks, even though they may have the votes to pass it immediately.
With Trump appearing poised to make the deathly unpopular decision to deploy ground troops into Iran within days, momentum around an act to restrict his warmaking capabilities only continues to grow.
Most of the Democrats who killed the last war powers resolution are now reportedly on board. So is Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who emerged from a closed-door House Armed Services Committee briefing on Wednesday saying she was “even more” opposed to boots on the ground than when she entered.
But despite having introduced the resolution himself, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, appeared to get cold feet about bringing it to the floor for a vote before next week's recess, a move which was met with anger and confusion from progressive critics.
A spokesperson for Democrats on the committee told Common Dreams on Wednesday that Meeks was very much committed to passing a bill to "hold President Trump accountable for his reckless war of choice," but that one could not be pursued until April 13, after the recess, because some of the necessary "yes" votes had left Washington.
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim described this as a "pathetic" excuse. "As Trump threatens a ground invasion, Democratic members of Congress are saying they won’t do the one thing they are elected to do: Show up and vote," he wrote on social media.
Additionally, Grim reported on Thursday that Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) had since returned to town. The only Democrat not currently in DC, he said, was Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), who said on Wednesday that his wife was undergoing a routine surgery.
Axios reported on Thursday afternoon that Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) is also absent due to the recent death of his father, and Rep. Jared Golden (Maine), one of the Democrats who opposed the last war powers vote, was still wavering as of Wednesday.
Even with some absences, Republicans are also not at full strength. Assuming that Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Warren Davidson (Ohio) plan to vote yes, as they did in February, there may still be enough votes for the resolution to pass.
When asked by Drop Site reporter Lily Franks on Thursday whether there were enough votes to pass the resolution, Meeks insisted, "We can't win the vote."
"When you see me put the bill on the floor, that means we're going to win," Meeks said sharply. "I know how to count. I know how to do my job."
When Franks pointed out that enough Republicans appeared to be on board, Meeks—continuing to interrupt—told her to "go find out" herself if there were enough votes.
"If only there were some mechanism on the House floor to find out how somebody might vote," Grim quipped in response.
The Democratic spokesperson could not be reached for comment when asked by Common Dreams whether Meeks was now planning to push for a resolution vote before the recess, given that some Democrats have returned to Washington.
Nathan Thompson, a senior policy adviser for Just Foreign Policy, argues that even if Democrats do not have the votes to pass the resolution now, there is no reason not to bring it to a vote.
"Forcing a vote will make House Republicans own an increasingly likely ground invasion," he said in a letter sent to House Democrats on Thursday morning, which was shared with Common Dreams. "Even a vote that falls short will be painful for House Republicans and put real pressure on the Trump administration."
"The attendance excuse doesn't hold," he said. "Members can return by tomorrow to vote, and Republicans aren't at full strength either... An unfortunate scheduling error should not prevent Congress from weighing in at a critical moment in history."
Calls for a war powers resolution on Capitol Hill continued to grow after reports that the Trump administration is mulling several potential ground operations in Iran, potentially as early as Friday.
Axios reported on Thursday that the Pentagon is considering "invading or blockading" Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub—and sending American forces “deep inside the interior of Iran” in an effort to seize the country’s enriched uranium.
The concerns about the repercussions of a prolonged war—even for just another two weeks—are broadly shared. Speaking on MS NOW on Thursday, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta warned that serious dangers exist that a short extension of the war could lead to a much more intractable situation.
"If we continue the war," Panetta said, "if we go another 16 days of war and we incur casualties, or they incur serious casualties, then the likelihood is that you're planting the seeds for a more permanent war."
As the risk of a more protracted conflict was magnified on Wednesday, Trump insisted that the US is not at war at all, but is simply waging a "military operation" against Iran.
This has heightened the urgency among many Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
"If it looks like a war, sounds like a war, and costs like a war… It’s probably a war," the former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote on social media Thursday. "Trump is admitting to violating the Constitution. No amount of doublespeak can change that."
"Congress must vote on another war powers resolution," she added.
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios that there was "absolutely" frustration among progressives that Democrats were planning to punt the vote to next month.
Meanwhile, critics are increasingly raising suspicion that Meeks—whom The Lever noted received more than $2.2 million from pro-Israel lobbying groups according to the watchdog group TrackAIPAC—is intentionally dragging out the vote.
A prolonged war and the resulting economic turmoil are brutally unpopular, including among Republicans, and the theory goes that Democrats may seek to let it become an albatross around their opponents' necks in this fall's midterms.
Independent journalist Aída Chávez has emphasized that Meeks held up the previous war powers vote by overinflating the number of Democrats likely to defect, and may have attempted to do so again.
But with Democratic stragglers on board and more Republicans "starting to break," Chávez said: "Democratic leadership can’t keep hiding behind process.
"Bring the Iran war powers resolution to the floor right now," she said.
Thompson of Just Foreign Policy warned Democrats that "failing to force a vote will be noticed and covered in the media," and that "the Democratic base is watching and expects their party to put up a real fight."
"Even if the vote falls short by a couple votes, the members who voted yes will have a powerful record to champion to their constituents," he said. "The members who voted no will have a very difficult record to explain if troops end up being killed and injured on the ground in Iran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Oligarchy on Full Display’: GOP Lawmakers Block Effort to Subpoena Donald Trump Jr. Over Suspicious Pentagon Loan
"If there is nothing to hide, then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital?"
Mar 26, 2026
A Democratic member of the US House is calling out her Republican colleagues after they thwarted her attempt to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. to answer questions related to his financial stake in a company that scored a suspiciously timed $620 million loan from the US Department of Defense last year.
Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) on Wednesday tried to force the House Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to vote on subpoenaing Trump Jr. to testify about his venture capital firm's investment in Vulcan Elements, a startup that specializes in producing rare-earth magnets used in drones, radars, and other pieces of military equipment.
According to CNBC, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), the subcommittee chairman, moved the committee into an hour-long recess immediately after Dexter motioned to subpoena the president's eldest son. After returning from the recess, Republicans on the subcommittee voted to table the resolution.
Dexter, however, vowed that this wasn't the end of the story.
"If there is nothing to hide," she said, "then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital? This is the oligarchy on full display, and I’m committed to ending corruption."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Resources Committee, told CNBC that investigations into Trump Jr. potentially using his father's presidency to enrich himself are "not going away."
"You can do these moves, but you cannot hide, you cannot dodge accountability," Huffman emphasized.
The Financial Times reported in December that 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm founded by pro-Trump donors in 2023 that brought Trump Jr. in as a partner in 2024, bought an equity stake in Vulcan Elements, months before it was awarded the $620 million loan by the Pentagon.
Revelations about the Vulcan Elements contract came just weeks after the Florida-based drone startup Unusual Machines, in which Trump Jr. has held a $4 million stake, received a contract from the US Army to manufacture 3,500 drone motors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This War Is Dumb as Hell': Military Historian Assesses Trump's Disaster in Iran
"Every day this war goes on makes both the United States and Iran weaker, poorer, and less secure."
Mar 25, 2026
Even as President Donald Trump signaled this week that he'd like to quickly wrap up his unconstitutional war with Iran, some experts are warning that the president has put himself in a situation with no easy way out.
Military historian Bret Devereaux, a teaching assistant professor at North Carolina State University, published a lengthy analysis of the war on Wednesday in which he described it as a failed gamble that Iran's regime would simply crumble in the face of a well-executed series of aerial strikes.
Devereaux said that this was highly unlikely given the nature of the Iranian regime, which is structured to maintain itself up and down the chain of command if one or even several of its leaders are killed.
And now that it's very clear that Trump's gamble of overthrowing the regime hasn't paid off, Devereaux wrote, he will be at the mercy of events beyond his control.
"Once started, a major regional war with Iran was always likely to be something of a 'trap,'" he contended, "not in the sense of an ambush laid by Iran—but in the sense of a situation that, once entered, cannot be easily left or reversed."
While Iran's response to the strikes carried out by the US and Israel in June 2025 was relatively tepid, Devereaux said, once Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the goal of their latest operation would be regime change, the Iranian government took the extraordinary step of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, sending global energy prices skyrocketing.
It has been this threat to shut down the strait, as well as the massive difficulty and cost it would take to occupy a nation of 90 million people, the historian continued, that has kept every US president for the last five decades from launching an invasion of Iran.
At the same time, he continued, Trump cannot now simply walk away while leaving Iran with the ability to take the global economy hostage whenever it pleases.
"The result is a fairly classic escalation trap: Once the conflict starts, it is extremely costly for either side to ever back down, which ensures that the conflict continues long past it being in the interests of either party," he wrote. "Every day this war goes on makes both the United States and Iran weaker, poorer, and less secure but it is very hard for either side to back down because there are huge costs connected to being the party that backs down."
Summing up his argument, Devereaux declared, "This war is dumb as hell."
Devereaux's analysis was echoed by Ilan Goldenberg, senior vice president and chief policy officer at J Street, who wrote in a social media post Wednesday that the US and Iran appear to be caught in an escalation trap, as exemplified by the Trump administration's recent decision to send more military personnel to the Persian Gulf.
"The much more important story right now isn’t diplomacy—it’s the thousands of US troops being mobilized and moving toward the Middle East," he wrote. "That movement strongly suggests preparation for further escalation, with Kharg Island emerging as the most likely target. For any objective observer, the likely Iranian response to a US move on Kharg is obvious: escalation, not capitulation. Tehran would almost certainly respond by expanding attacks on energy infrastructure across the Gulf."
Goldenberg added that "the most plausible off-ramp" will involve Trump simply declaring victory while leaving the regime intact and with vague promises to not produce a nuclear weapon, although he said that likely wouldn't come until after more escalation and destruction.
"Better to accept this likely outcome today rather than six months from now," he advised.
In a Wednesday analysis published at Liberal Currents, University of Illinois political scientist Nicholas Grossman cast doubt on Trump's ability to simply wash his hands of the Iran conflict and walk away.
Part of the issue, said Grossman, is that Iran simply might want to keep inflicting economic damage on Trump to make him think twice before launching a future attack on the regime.
"In hard power dynamics, this is the strongest position the Islamic Republic has ever been in, the most leverage they have over the United States since the 1979-80 hostage crisis," Grossman wrote. "Iran is likely thinking of longer-term security. If they can endure more US-Israeli bombing—and the war so far indicates that they can—then they can increasingly establish their ability to crash the global economy, a deterrent even the United States must respect."
Given that Trump is unlikely to want to be seen as a "loser" for simply accepting Iran's control of the strait, Grossman concluded, "that points to stablemate or escalation, more death and destruction, and a global economic disruption that will be bigger than many currently expect."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular