Follow us on social

google cta
Why are major progressive orgs silent on Biden's lurch toward war?

Why are major progressive orgs silent on Biden's lurch toward war?

Apart from a few outliers, leading activist groups haven't said or done much to push for a diplomatic resolution

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The general silence around the progressive establishment as the current Democratic administration prepares to launch military strikes against more foreign targets risking a wider war in the Middle East is so depressing and disconcerting.

As deeply disturbed I am about Rep. Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) recent bizarre and absurd attacks on peace advocates, I am even more distressed about the prospect of a casual stroll into an all out war against Iran in response to the militia attack on U.S. military personnel near the Jordan/Syria border over the weekend, which killed three Americans and wounded dozens more. Why U.S. troops are even there to begin with is a whole other matter.

Since Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel on October 7 and Israel’s invasion of Gaza in response, Biden administration officials and the president himself have repeatedly said they do not want the conflict to spiral out of control in the region. But in response to the attack on U.S. troops at the Jordan/Syria border, President Biden is reportedly considering “striking Iranian personnel in Syria or Iraq or Iranian naval assets in the Persian Gulf” which, if he follows through, could carry with it a tit-for-tat path of escalation that risks spiraling out of control.

Also, the Biden administration apparently does not see a link between U.S. support for Israel’s carnage in Gaza and the violence in the Red Sea and elsewhere in the region. Instead, Politico reported this week that an unnamed U.S. official “poured cold water on a pair of alternative options the U.S. could take: Reassessing troop deployments in the region and pressuring Israel to end fighting in Gaza, since that’s what has been angering the proxy groups.”

The same report, however, quoted former State Department official and international law expert Brian Finucane saying that “non-military options are likely to be more effective at bringing about an end to attacks on U.S. troops.”

Keep in mind President Biden is already on record saying that recent U.S. strikes targeting the Houthis haven’t been working. Furthermore, Qatar has already reportedly warned that U.S. retaliation to strikes in Jordan could hurt the ongoing hostage negotiations.

There have been some in the progressive foreign policy space offering sober, level-headed progressive approaches on how to diffuse the tension. For example, Matt Duss, former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, has suggested better non-military options like negotiating a new Iran nuclear deal, pushing for a legitimate two-state solution, and conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel. “Ultimately, you need to get to some kind of modus vivendi of which Iran is a part," he said.

Win Without War, a grassroots focused group that promotes progressive foreign policy, has been on point as usual with their messaging imploring President Biden to change his current course in the Middle East.

But apart from that, there are not many people speaking out from the progressive mainstream and there are very few, if any calls to action.

Meanwhile, many on the right wing are filling the void and talking the most sense about the situation at this moment. For example, Tucker Carlson called Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) “f*cking lunatics” for calling on Biden to attack Iran. Former GOP presidential candidate and now Trump surrogate Vivek Ramaswamy blasted Graham and Nikki Haley for "giddily calling" for war: "It's disgusting & says a lot about the kind of GOP they're trying to recreate," Ramaswamy tweeted. And Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) piled on, asking Graham, "Is there anyone you don't want to bomb?"

This should be a four alarm fire. If I was at my old job running the political advocacy programs at CREDO Mobile today, emails would be going out lighting up the Capitol Hill switchboards trying to prevent a Democratic president from leaning even further into this maddening military conflict (which is exactly what we did a handful of times during the Obama administration).

Where is the leadership from the Left — leaders at big organizations with outsized email programs and social media assets to deploy?

What is happening? Is there anyone effectively organizing against Biden just casually leading us into another war?

I fully support an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and an immediate release of all hostages. Those two outcomes are linked. And, I admire everyone pouring their heart and soul into their advocacy to make that a reality.

But, right now, President Biden and his team are sleepwalking into a direct war in the Middle East, a course of action that will be beyond devastating and one that requires the Left’s urgent attention.


A person holds a sign reading 'abandon Biden' during a pro-Palestine demonstration outside of the White House in Washington, D.C. on January 13, 2024. Protestors accused Biden of being complicit in allowing what they consider to be a genocide committed by Israel in Gaza. (Photo by Bryan Olin Dozier/NurPhoto)

google cta
Analysis | Middle East
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.