A top Democratic senator on Tuesday had a blunt assessment of why members of his party are out of step with rank-and-file American Democrats across the country on issues of foreign policy, specifically President Trump’s illegal attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on Saturday.
During an interview with Sen. Chris Murphy, MSNBC host Chris Hayes pointed to a new poll finding that 56% of Americans disapproved of the airstrikes and that the partisan breakdown showed a whopping 87% of Democrats opposing the attack.
“I gotta say, if you just looked at elected Democratic members of Congress I don’t think you would think the voting members of the party were as overwhelmingly against this strike as they are compared to the people they send to go represent them in Congress,” Hayes told Murphy, asking, “Do you feel like there's a pretty big distance on these kinds of issues, between Democratic voters and democratic electeds?”
“I mean yes,” Murphy quickly responded. “That's because, listen, there is a war industry in this town. There just is. There's a lot of people who make money off of war. The military, I love them, they're capable. But they are always way overly optimistic about what they can do.”
Murphy added that the problem infects both parties, but Americans understand that U.S. military intervention, from Vietnam and Iraq to Afghanistan and Yemen, doesn’t work.
“So the American people get it,” Murphy said. “This town, you know, has, like I said, a degree of optimism and hubris about military action that is derivative of the fact that the war industry spends a lot of money here in Washington telling us that the guns and the tanks and the planes can solve all of our problems.” Watch:
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Top image credit: Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com
Top photo credit:A man reads a newspaper at a newsstand, amid the Israel-Iran conflict, in Tehran, Iran, June 22, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The United States has finally entered Israel’s escalating war against Iran, launching targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to obliterate Tehran’s nuclear threat, a goal once more effectively achieved through the 2015 Iran deal.
President Trump warned Iran that there will be peace or a tragedy far greater than what Iran has witnessed in recent days, signaling that there were “other targets” if Iran wished to escalate.
Yet even this one-ended strike may not fully eradicate Iran’s indigenous nuclear capabilities. It certainly hasn’t ended Iran’s attacks on Israel, and now opens up risks to American troops and assets in the region. In fact, Iran’s possible responses from here on are varied and unpredictable. But we know the costs — particularly economic — are escalating, and could be devastating for all parties involved and worldwide.
Israel is already bearing massive economic costs. Estimates suggest that a month-long war could cost Israel around $12 billion, with daily military expenses averaging $725 million. If Iran targets more civilian infrastructure, these costs could escalate sharply.
Over 5,000 Israelis have already been evacuated from their homes due to missile strikes. Labor shortages are worsening as tens of thousands of reservists, many from critical high-tech and industrial sectors, are mobilized. By the end of 2024, the Gaza war had already drained Israel of over $67.5 billion, excluding significant civilian and infrastructure damages and broader economic losses, which remain difficult to quantify.
A swift military victory might mitigate some economic impacts, but a prolonged war could severely impair Israel’s economic growth, strain fiscal stability, and potentially harm its international credit rating.
Even before the Israel strikes, Iran faced a daunting infrastructure crisis, urgently needing over $500 billion in investments to address critical economic shortfalls exacerbated by U.S. sanctions. Israeli attacks have deepened this crisis, destroying vital civilian and energy infrastructure. The direct costs of reconstruction alone could reach tens of billions of dollars, adding enormous strain to Iran’s already battered economy and limited fiscal resources.
My estimate draws on the latest 2023 Iranian household expenditure survey, revealing that over 80% of Iranians fail to meet the 2,100-calorie daily requirement and suffer from food insecurity. A prolonged war would only exacerbate this humanitarian crisis, pushing the country toward a potential national catastrophe.
Iran could retaliate by launching cyberattacks on critical U.S. infrastructure, such as power grids, water systems, pipelines, financial networks, and other essential services. The economic consequences of such cyber retaliation could range from hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollars.
Further, if Iran targets energy infrastructure in the Gulf states or blocks the Strait of Hormuz, it could disrupt over 20% of global oil and LNG supplies, potentially driving oil prices to as high as $150 per barrel. A Bloomberg analysis warns that sustained prices at this level could shrink global GDP by nearly $1 trillion annually, fueling global stagflation. For the United States, this would severely undermine efforts to control inflation and economic stability.
Netanyahu’s ambition to topple Iran’s regime is unlikely to succeed without direct U.S. involvement, including the deployment of hundreds of thousands of ground troops. If Washington intervenes in this way, it risks plunging itself into yet another open-ended war, requiring another $2 trillion to $3 trillion and thousands of lives lost.
Even if Israel achieves its immediate military aims by decapitating Iranian leadership, neutralizing military capabilities, and potentially fracturing Iran without Tehran’s painful retaliation, such a victory would likely prove hollow. The resulting chaos would unleash waves of insurgency, refugee crises, and regional instability surpassing the turmoil that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Given the decentralized nature of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), even a fragmented Iran could remain a persistent threat. Remaining IRGC forces and proxies could continue attacks against Western and Arab economic targets across the region, imposing ongoing risks to American interests and causing substantial losses for U.S. allies.
The regional economic fallout could be existential for Gulf allies such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain. Due to rising tensions, the IMF has already revised its 2025 economic growth forecast for the region from 4% down to 2.6%. A sustained two-to-three-year decline in growth, coupled with vanished foreign direct investment and delayed mega-projects critical to Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, could cost these economies anywhere between $730 billion and $1 trillion.
As one Gulf official noted, a prolonged conflict could erase years of economic progress by disrupting national development strategies and severely damaging investor confidence. The appearance of a fragmented Iran might seem advantageous at first glance, but the ripple effects would ultimately burden U.S. taxpayers and businesses, drawing America into an extended regional quagmire.
If Israel’s military campaign fails, Tehran will likely emerge emboldened, not weakened. Already, Israeli attacks appear to have fueled Iranian public support for nuclear armament, potentially paving Iran’s path toward a nuclear weapon.
Despite its heavy cost, Iran retains the right under Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to withdraw, allowing it to restart its nuclear program without oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Such a scenario would likely trigger a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation across the region and beyond, from Berlin and Warsaw to Ankara, and from Riyadh to Seoul and Tokyo, unraveling decades of non-proliferation efforts.
Imagine a nuclear-armed Middle East, with European and East Asian nations scrambling to develop their own deterrents. What began as a targeted Israeli strike could spiral into a global security nightmare. The economic implications would be staggering: higher energy prices, soaring insurance premiums, investor uncertainty, and massive military build-ups, all severely undermining American strategic and economic interests.
A new arms race extending from the Gulf to the Pacific could destabilize the global economy and dramatically weaken America’s strategic posture. No American president, not even during the Cold War, has ever had to confront the simultaneous unraveling of the global nuclear order across multiple continents. President Trump would inevitably be the first.
It is unclear whether the Trump Administration could even restart the talks after this weekend’s strikes. But rather than sinking billions into another costly war, Washington could offer sanctions relief and regional economic engagement in exchange for Iran returning to strict compliance at lower levels of enrichment than those prescribed by the 2015 JCPOA or even denuclearization. Such a deal could expand it into a de facto non-aggression pact between Iran and Israel, something that was previously unthinkable.
My recent research highlights that the U.S. can indeed secure a stronger and more comprehensive deal through licensing bilateral trade up to $25 billion annually and providing avenues for American companies to access Iran’s largely untapped $4 trillion investment market by 2040. Such an agreement could stabilize the region through mutual economic engagement rather than military escalation.
The alternative is unspeakable: a trillion-dollar regional disaster, a shattered nuclear agreement, a nuclear-armed Iran, and the disintegration of alliance networks that have historically underpinned U.S. dominance in the Middle East.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: A man on an e-scooter passes a giant billboard, where U.S. President Donald Trump appears, in Tel Aviv, Israel, June 22, 2025. REUTERS/Violeta Santos Moura
With the decision to bomb three of Iran’s nuclear sites, President Trump has put the United States on a reckless path that risks another Middle East war — precisely the kind he repeatedly promised to avoid.
Even if the strikes achieved short-term tactical success, they have turned a challenge that could have been managed diplomatically into a military crisis. Hitting a few facilities will not dismantle Iran’s nuclear program; it will only push it further underground and harden Tehran’s resolve, closing the door on a negotiated agreement with monitoring mechanisms like those in the JCPOA —the deal Trump abandoned after taking office the first time.
The likely outcome is a reconstituted nuclear program pursued with greater determination to build a weapon. Rather than halting Iran’s progress, these so-called “precision” strikes could very well spiral into a much broader, possibly regime change-driven war.
Vice President J.D. Vance has claimed that the U.S. is “not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.” But even if that distinction is intended, launching strikes on Iran in coordination with Israel right in the middle of fragile nuclear negotiations that were only given two months to succeed, when meaningful diplomacy would require far longer, will be understood in Tehran as a broader act of aggression.
Coupled with incendiary rhetoric from some Israeli officials, it risks being interpreted not as a limited operation, but as a declaration of intent to dismantle the regime. President Trump’s praise of U.S.-Israeli teamwork in announcing the strikes makes Washington appear complicit in Israel’s wider strategy, including its ongoing assassination campaigns, and will only reinforce Iran’s belief that regime change is the end goal.
This escalation has endangered U.S. troops and diplomatic posts in the region — particularly in Iraq and Syria. The administration is once again mistaking short-term military impact for long-term strategic success, repeating the same hubris that followed the early weeks of the Iraq War and President George W. Bush’s ill-fated “Mission Accomplished” moment.
President Trump was not acting in a vacuum; he was warned by lawmakers and even thought leaders within his own movement about the consequences. Yet, his White House is diving into another volatile conflict without a plan for what comes next. This is not the end of a crisis — it is the beginning of something far more dangerous.
Lawmakers like Speaker Mike Johnson may insist that the U.S. was facing “imminent danger,” but the facts tell a different story. Both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, concluded that Iran was not actively racing toward a nuclear weapon. The narrative of an urgent threat from weapons of mass destruction echoes so clearly the lead-up to the Iraq War that the parallels are impossible to dismiss.
This isn’t a tired cliché — it’s a grim chorus of history repeating itself, not as farce, but as another willful march toward unnecessary war.
The lesson for the Iranian government, whether it is too late or not, will be that they should have pursued a nuclear capability faster and more secretly, a lesson that will be observed by other regimes around the world. This should be a chilling realization for the international community.
Some analysts may mistakenly believe that this strike, alongside past actions like the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, adds credibility to President Trump’s future threats and strengthens his hand in nuclear negotiations with Iran. But that view ignores a fundamental reality: like all countries, Iran has domestic politics. If its leadership is seen as capitulating to U.S. and Israeli aggression, it risks internal collapse.
By boxing Iran into a corner, Trump hasn’t increased diplomatic leverage — he’s made meaningful negotiation nearly impossible. He may celebrate this as a show of strength, but it’s shortsighted. Iran was already at the negotiating table, and now, the message to other adversaries may not be to concede under pressure — but rather to develop credible deterrents to avoid becoming the next target.
The deeper tragedy is that President Trump had a real opportunity to broker a strong nuclear agreement with Iran. As a second-term president, he had both the political freedom and even some bipartisan support to pursue a broader, long-term deal — one that might have eventually laid the groundwork for normalized relations.
Instead, he chose confrontation over diplomacy, goaded on by interventionist lawmakers like Ted Cruz and those who have long pushed for regime change far beyond the nuclear issue. What could have been a landmark diplomatic achievement has now become just another step toward prolonged conflict.
It is, of course, not too late to change course, though recent U.S. actions have made diplomacy far more difficult, and Iranian retaliation is almost certain. Still, making clear that a negotiated deal remains on the table is better than not offering one at all.
The problem, however, is that Iran now has little reason to trust the United States, many incentives to pursue a nuclear deterrent — which it likely still can — and few motivations to agree to any new deal. Worse, the calls for regime change may only grow louder as a result leading to a war that is even more destabilizing than the Iraq war.
keep readingShow less
To photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump walks with Col. Paul R. Pawluk, Vice Commander for the 89th Airlift Wing, before boarding Marine One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., June 21, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
President Donald Trump told the American people tonight in a brief address to the nation that Iran's nuclear program has been ""completely totally obliterated" after U.S. airstrikes on Iran overnight into Sunday morning, Tehran time.
He congratulated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who launched Israel's strikes against Iran on June 13 and has been asking for U.S. assistance ever since. "We have worked as a team like no team has worked together before."
According to Trump and confirmed by reports earlier, the mountain facility at Fordo was struck, as well as the enrichment plant at Natanz, as well as a another site at Isfahan. The strikes were carried out in part by B-2s, which can carry payloads of 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs. Later reports indicated that dozens of bunker busters were used on Fordo and Natanz, and that Navy submarines fired 30 TLAM cruise missiles at the Natanz and Isfahan sites.
Trump praised the "brilliant military minds" who helped plan the successful attacks — "the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades."
The said now there "will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater for Iran than we have witnessed in the last many days," he added, noting there "are many other targets." He then proceeded to say "God Bless the Middle East, God Bless Israel" and then blessed the U.S. military.
His remarks came after he first announced the strikes around 8 PM EST on his Truth Social account:
Adam Weinstein, a Quincy Institute Middle East fellow who served as a combat Marine in Afghanistan, said the U.S. has now officially put the 40,000 troops in the Middle East in harm's way, a warning that many had tried to convey to the president and administration all week in the run up to tonight's action.
"You’ve put every U.S. troop and embassy in the region at risk and squandered America’s diplomatic leverage—though you’ll likely think you’ve strengthened it."
Some of the biggest MAGA supporters who had been against U.S. war with Iran have so far not moved.
“Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war,” posted Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been among the most vocal in the run up to the strikes.
“There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer”
Lawmakers pounced on the fact the president did not have Congressional authorization to attack, knowing that there was no imminent threat to the country.
“This is not Constitutional,” posted Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky), who had been vocalizing opposition to the strikes and had proposed legislation to stop them.
When Speaker Mike Johnson posted that the Congress did not have time to authorize because leaders "knew" the country was in "imminent danger" (he points to the nuclear weapons that don't yet exist and accuses Iran of being the "world's largest state sponsor of terrorism"), Massie shot back: "Why didn’t you call us back from vacation to vote on military action if there was a serious threat to our country?"
Rep. Warren Davidson, (R-Ohio), also a veteran, urged caution. "While President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s hard to conceive a rationale that’s Constitutional. I look forward to his remarks tonight."
"According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop," posted Rep. Jim Himes, (D-Conn).
"It is so grossly unconstitutional," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a rally after hearing the news. "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress, the president does not have the right."
Senator Tim Kaine, (D-Va.) has proposed a Senate version of the War Powers bill which was supposed to get a vote this week. "The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran. And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least 2 or 3 years,'" he posted on X on Saturday. "So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war."
Of course congratulations have already been streaming in from the hawkish members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle, especially pertinent committee chairmen and ranking members.
"Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate — and correct— decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime," said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You're the best!"
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said this won't be a forever war and won't involve American boots on the ground, but Trump was right to take "decisive action" because disarming Iran is "for the good of the world."
“We stand with Israel tonight and pray for the safety of its people and the success of this unilateral, defensive action.”
Interest groups including the Republican Jewish Coalition and AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) that have been pushing for this war were quick to thank Trump tonight.
"Today’s successful, targeted military action proves once again that nobody has been tougher on Tehran, or a better friend to Israel, than President Trump," exclaimed the RJC, one of Trump's biggest campaign supporters.
"Tonight will go down in the history books as one of the most consequential orders ever given by a U.S. President. God speed to our heroic war fighters."
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.